Review economics
socketio/socket.io
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.
—
Attributed
0
Attributed PRs
100
Other PRs
100
Read
The rest — the latest 5
#4740 Update socket.ts: Change the socket.data type from Partial<SocketData…
0 reviews · 43h to merge
#5518 fix(parser): honor toJSON() when deconstructing a binary packet
0 reviews · 13.1d to merge
#5502 chore(deps): ws@8.21.0 (fixes DoS vulnerability)
1 reviews · 2.2d to merge
#5469 fix(types): preserve transport literal suggestions in engine.io-client
0 reviews · 79.3d to merge
#5508 docs(engine.io): correct maxHttpBufferSize default in JSDoc (1e6 / 1 MB)
0 reviews · 4h to merge
How this was measured
No commit in this window carries agent attribution, so there is no AI-authored share to read here — which is not evidence there is none; tools that only complete code inline leave no commit trail, so the unattributed side includes AI-assisted work; reads 100 of 450 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
“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 socketio/socket.io 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 socketio/socket.io — 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