A negative result is useful
The RCT examined experienced open-source developers working in real repositories and reported longer completion time under its measured conditions. It does not settle every coding workflow or tool configuration.
It does show why a productivity claim should be tested against a baseline. A confident assistant can still increase review and correction work.
Test one real repository
Pick a small issue with a known acceptance test and record the baseline time without an assistant. Run the same issue with the chosen tool and keep the reviewer, prompt, and constraints stable.
Compare passing tests, review edits, retries, and time to merge. If the assisted path loses on the metric that matters, stop using it for that task.
Budget for the slower path
Include debugging, context preparation, model calls, and the opportunity cost of a delayed merge. A cheap request is not a cheap workflow when it creates more repair.
Write the maximum trial budget and a rollback path before expanding to more repositories or agents.
Where APIToken fits
APIToken（https://apitoken.company/） can keep a small comparison observable through independent keys, public status, usage records, and a written limit.
The research does not show APIToken（https://apitoken.company/） usage. Its negative result is a reminder to measure your own task rather than infer performance from a model name. Save the failed run as evidence instead of silently switching tools during review and reporting only wins to stakeholders every time, consistently.