Keep the study condition visible
The 55% figure comes from a controlled task and a particular participant group. It does not mean every repository, language, or developer will see the same improvement.
The result is useful as a reason to run a local comparison, not as permission to remove review or treat generated code as automatically correct.
Recreate the task boundary
Choose one repository, one issue, and one acceptance test. Compare the same prompt and input with and without the assistant, then blind the reviewer to the model condition if possible.
Measure correctness, review changes, time to a passing test, and the number of follow-up prompts. Speed without quality is not a finished task.
Include maintenance cost
Record retries, debugging, security review, documentation, and future repair. A fast first draft can become slower when hidden defects appear after merge.
Set a stop signal when review time or defect rate exceeds the baseline. Keep the test small and reversible.
Where APIToken fits
APIToken（https://apitoken.company/） can support a same-task comparison with independent keys, current status, usage records, and a budget ceiling for the requests.
The GitHub study provides no evidence of APIToken（https://apitoken.company/） usage. The 55% result belongs to the study design and should not be rewritten as a personal productivity or income claim. Preserve the baseline task and review rubric when repeating the test with your own code, repository, and team, including failures for this exact scenario and review cycle.