agentleFS
Community-AccessCommunity-Access/accessibility-agents/.github/skills/github-analytics-scoring/SKILL.md

github-analytics-scoring

Skill409 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Score repository health (0-100, A-F grades), priorities, and delta tracking. Includes velocity metrics, confidence levels, and bottleneck detection.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When re-running an analysis against a previous report, classify every finding by change status:

    line 115
  2. Distinctive:

    If a finding is Persistent for 3+ consecutive reports, escalate:

    line 142
  3. Distinctive:

    When project boards are configured, track sprint metrics:

    line 235

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

GitHub Analytics Scoring

Repository Health Score

Health Score = 100 - (sum of weighted penalties)

Penalties - CI & Reliability:
  Failing workflow, high confidence:         -10 points
  Flaky test (3+ failures/week):             - 5 points
  No CI configured:                          - 8 points

Penalties - Issues & PRs:
  Critical unresolved bug (P0):             -10 points
  Security alert (critical severity):       -10 points
  Security alert (high severity):           - 5 points
  PR open >14 days (stale):                 - 3 points each (max -9)
  Issue @mentioned, no response >7 days:    - 5 points each (max -10)
  >10 open issues with no labels/triage:    - 3 points

Penalties - Community Health:
  No CONTRIBUTING.md:                        - 5 points
  No CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md:                     - 3 points
  No branch protection on main:              - 5 points
  0 open "good first issue" labels:          - 2 points

Floor: 0 (minimum score)

Score Grades

ScoreGradeMeaning
90-100AExcellent - healthy repo, minimal issues
75-89BGood - minor issues, well-managed
50-74CNeeds attention - multiple signals requiring action
25-49DPoor - significant problems impacting velocity
0-24FCritical - major issues blocking team progress

Priority Scoring for Issues

Internally score each issue to determine sort order in dashboards and reports:

SignalPoints
User @mentioned and hasn't responded+5
P0, P1, critical, urgent, blocker label+3
Tied to upcoming release milestone+3
New comments from others since user's last activity+2
High community interest (5+ positive reactions)+2
bug label+1
Assigned to user+1
Active related discussion thread+1
wontfix, duplicate, question label-1
No activity >14 days-2

Priority Scoring for Pull Requests

SignalPoints
Review requested, user hasn't reviewed+5
PR has "changes requested" - author needs to update+4
PR is approved and ready to merge+3
Targets a release branch with upcoming deadline+3
CI failed on this PR+2
Merge conflicts present+2
High community interest (5+ positive reactions)+2
New comments on the PR+1
Active discussion thread linked to this PR+1
Draft PR-1
No activity >7 days-2

Priority Scoring for Discussions

SignalPoints
User was @mentioned+3
High activity (10+ comments in 24h)+2
Linked to an issue/PR the user owns+1
No activity >7 days-1

Confidence Levels for Analytics Findings

Apply confidence levels to all bottleneck findings, health score deductions, and anomaly detections. Every finding in a report MUST include its confidence level.

LevelWhen to UseImpact on Report
HighMultiple corroborating signals, definitively observed (e.g., CI has failed 5 times this week, confirmed by logs)Report as fact; recommend remediation
MediumFound by one source, likely issue (e.g., PR open 14 days but author may be on leave)Report as finding; suggest investigation
LowPossible pattern, needs human review (e.g., velocity seems low but may be seasonal)Flag as observation; don't deduct from score

Confidence Tag Format in Reports

| Finding | Severity | Confidence | Recommendation |
|---------|----------|-----------|----------------|
| 3 PRs stale >14 days | High | **High** | Assign reviewers or close |
| Velocity 40% below 4-week avg | Medium | **Medium** | Verify - may be holiday period |
| Issue activity spike on Fridays | Low | **Low** | Monitor for 2 weeks before acting |

Delta Tracking

When re-running an analysis against a previous report, classify every finding by change status:

StatusDefinition
FixedWas in previous report; no longer present
NewNot in previous report; appears now
PersistentRemains from previous report, unchanged
RegressedWas previously fixed but has returned

Delta Report Section Format

## Changes Since Last Report ({previous date})

| Change | Finding | Details |
|--------|---------|---------|
|  Fixed | 3 stale PRs resolved | Team cleared the backlog |
|  New | CI failing on main | Build broke in last 24h |
|  Persistent (#3) | Velocity 30% below baseline | Third consecutive week |
|  Regressed | Security alert reopened | lodash advisory re-filed |

**Progress:** {N} fixed, {M} new, {P} persistent, {Q} regressed
**Score change:** {current_score} ({+/-N} from {previous_score})

Escalation Rule

If a finding is Persistent for 3+ consecutive reports, escalate:

Escalation: [{Finding}] has been present for {N} consecutive reports. Consider a team discussion or explicit ownership assignment to resolve this.


Velocity Metrics

MetricFormulaHealthyWarningCritical
PR merge ratePRs merged / week>3/week1-3/week<1/week
Issue close rateIssues closed / week>5/week2-5/week<2/week
Review turnaroundAvg hours PR open before first review<24h24-72h>72h
Issue response timeAvg hours until first team response<8h8-48h>48h
Stale PR ratioPRs open >14 days / total open PRs<10%10-30%>30%
CI reliabilityPassing runs / total runs (7-day)>95%80-95%<80%

Contributor Metrics

MetricFormulaNotes
PR commit ratioCommits / PRs mergedHigh ratio = large PRs, consider splitting
Review coveragePRs reviewed by others / total PRs mergedLow = single-contributor bottleneck
First-time contributor rateNew contributors / total active contributorsHealthy community growth signal
Contributor retentionActive last month AND active this month / active last monthEngagement health
Bus factorMin contributors whose departure halts 50%+ of commits<3 is high risk

Bottleneck Categories

CategorySignalsExample Finding
Review bottleneckHigh PR open time, review-requested PRs >3 days"4 PRs waiting for review >3 days - assign or redistribute"
CI bottleneckFrequent failures, long runtimes"Test suite 45min avg - 2x slower than 4-week average"
Stale workIssues/PRs with no activity >14 days"7 issues open >30 days with no recent comments"
Knowledge concentration80%+ commits from one contributor"3 of 4 core modules have only one contributor - bus factor 1"
Response lag>24h average first response to new issues"Average first response: 38h - community may feel unsupported"
Security debtOpen Dependabot alerts unresolved >7 days"2 critical alerts open for 12 days"
Release congestion>10 merged PRs unreleased"11 merged PRs awaiting release - coordinate cut date"

Trend Classification

TrendDefinition
ImprovingScore increased 5+ points vs previous report
StableScore within 5 points of previous report
DecliningScore decreased 5+ points vs previous report
RecoveringScore increased after 2+ consecutive Declining reports
NewNo previous report to compare

Scorecard Output Format

Single Repo

## Repository Health Score

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Repo | [owner/repo](url) |
| Score | {0-100} |
| Grade | {A-F} |
| Trend | {Improving / Stable / Declining} |
| Open Security Alerts | {count} |
| Stale PRs (>14 days) | {count} |
| CI Reliability (7-day) | {%} |
| Unanswered @mentions | {count} |

Multi-Repo Scorecard

## Repository Health Scorecard

| Repo | Score | Grade | Trend | Critical Issues | Notes |
|------|-------|-------|-------|-----------------|-------|
| owner/repo-a | 88 | B | Improving | 0 | |
| owner/repo-b | 54 | C | Declining | 1 | Security alert unresolved |
| owner/repo-c | 22 | F | Stable | 3 | Review bottleneck + stale PRs |
| **Average** | **54.7** | **C** | - | **4** | |

Sprint & Iteration Metrics

When project boards are configured, track sprint metrics:

MetricFormula
Sprint completion rateDone items / total sprint items x 100
Carryover rateItems moved to next sprint / planned items
Cycle timeAverage days from "In Progress" to "Done"
ThroughputItems completed per sprint
Blocked rateItems in "Blocked" state / total in-progress

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.