Review economics
web-infra-dev/midscene
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests ·
Not enough merged pull requests on both sides yet to compare how they land in review.
≥1%
Attributed
a floor
1
Attributed PRs
99
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#2906 feat(shared): add foreground recording for recorded assertions
1 reviews · 7.0d to merge
#2932 ci(workflow): publish generated release notes
1 reviews · 8h to merge
#2913 ci(workflow): use internal cache on self-hosted runners
1 reviews · 5.1d to merge
#2863 feat(chrome-extension): harden recorder and share config modal
1 reviews · 11.7d to merge
#2926 fix(playwright): remove finalized source reports
1 reviews · 24h to merge
How this was measured
1% 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; 2 PRs came off an agent branch with no commit attribution, so the real share runs higher; reads 100 of 1879 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex.
“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 web-infra-dev/midscene 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 web-infra-dev/midscene — 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