Marcos Paulo
15d7f5e873
- notescraft-lint (rules, safe fixes, learned style) and notescraft-blocks (block model and edits); engine lint.* and block.* commands with CLI and MCP parity - Lint tab, underlines, slash menu with preview in Source and Visual, block grip and menu, Settings > Editor and lint, Vim block keys - Visual view: tables, note embeds, %% comments, wrapping property chips - Vault knowledge (Related tab, assistant sources, Settings) and calendar plugin - Sidebar top padding fixed, dot grid follows PaperCraft spacing, right-card tabs no longer cover the collapse button Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.1 KiB
tags
| tags | |
|---|---|
|
Thesis notes
Motivation
The thesis asks whether small teams review code faster when they use pull request templates. Earlier studies looked at large open source projects only.
Related work
Three papers study review latency, and one studies reviewer fatigue. None of them separates teams below ten people, which is the gap this work fills.
Methodology
We sample forty teams of three to nine people and collect their review data for six months. The sample size follows a power analysis with a medium effect and eighty percent power. Teams are matched by size and language, and the outcome is the median hours until the first review comment.
Threats to validity
Teams that volunteer may care more about process. We control for tenure and project age but cannot rule out selection effects entirely.
Results so far
The pilot with six teams shows a drop of about a third in time to first review. The number is too small to trust and is only used to check the pipeline.
Writing plan
Draft the introduction in April, the methods in May, and leave June for the results and a full revision.