Review economics
seaweedfs/seaweedfs
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests · · read 6 times
Pull requests with attributed agent authorship took 6.6× the reviews submitted of the rest.
≥6%
Attributed
a floor
3
Attributed PRs
97
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 3
The rest — the latest 5
#10560 Stop the filer test helpers from pinning gigabytes of log buffers
0 reviews · 2h to merge
#10556 mount: report . and .. from windows directories
1 reviews · 12h to merge
#10555 ci: run WinFsp's conformance suite against the windows mount
1 reviews · 1h to merge
#10553 mount: tell windows about changes made elsewhere
2 reviews · 5h to merge
#10554 mount: forward extended attributes on windows
1 reviews · 4h to merge
How this was measured
6% 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 5109 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Claude Code.
“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 seaweedfs/seaweedfs 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 seaweedfs/seaweedfs — 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