Review economics
tisfeng/Easydict
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests ·
Pull requests with attributed agent authorship took only 0.4× the reviews submitted of the rest.
≥4%
Attributed
a floor
3
Attributed PRs
97
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 3
The rest — the latest 5
#1258 fix(settings): 修复 macOS 27 设置侧边栏和标题栏布局冲突
3 reviews · 2.9d to merge
#1225 fix: reduce WebView churn in query results
2 rounds · 22 reviews · 37.0d to merge
#1207 feat(setting): make service list add/remove based
27 reviews · 47.1d to merge
#1255 fix(selection): 禁用屏幕镜像应用中的自动取词
2 reviews · 9h to merge
#1205 feat(query): 增加输入自动翻译切换开关optionally auto translate while typing
13 reviews · 42.2d to merge
How this was measured
4% of merged commits carry agent attribution — a floor, not the share; tools that only complete code inline leave no commit trail, so the unattributed side includes AI-assisted work; reads 100 of 354 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Claude Code, GitHub Copilot coding agent, Google Jules.
“Attributed” means a commit carried an agent’s signature — a co-author trailer, an agent commit identity, or an agent bot account. Tools that only complete code inline leave no such mark, so the other column is “rest”, not “human-written”. Full method and its limits
The badge reads this repo’s current report, so it follows the number.
Tell me when this moves
We re-read tisfeng/Easydict weekly and email only when the number changes materially.
Read your own repos
This one is public. For a private repo, run the same read locally through your own GitHub credentials — nothing is installed and nothing is sent to us.
npx @ambera/review-taxWant this continuously on tisfeng/Easydict — each pull request paired to the task it came from, and the work graded from its review loop rather than its diff size? Claim this repo in Forge
Browse every repo people have read · Read a different repository