Review reciprocity

What it measures

How review effort is shared. Over merged PRs in the window, each active contributor is sorted into one of four states — both gives and receives review, gives only, receives only, or neither — and the panel shows the share of the team in each. It counts anonymously and names no one.

Why it matters

Healthy review is a two-way practice. When many people only receive (their work is reviewed but they review no one) or only give (they review others but their own work goes unreviewed), knowledge and feedback flow in one direction — a fragility and a fairness problem.

How to read it

• A high 'Both' share is the healthy signal — review is mutual across the team.
• A large 'Give-only' or 'Receive-only' slice points to lopsided review effort worth a conversation.
• 'Neither' is work that merged without review and whose author reviewed nothing — a coverage gap.

Anti-blame

Team-level shares only. It never identifies who gives or receives review, has no per-person drilldown, and is suppressed when there are too few active contributors to stay anonymous.

Common misreads

It is not a productivity ranking — receiving review is not 'worse' than giving it; the goal is balance, not a score.