You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Analysis Period: Last 30 days (2026-08-01 – 2026-08-30) Total Tasks Analyzed: 1,000 copilot-authored PRs Clusters Identified: 7 Overall Success Rate: 84.0% (840 merged / 155 closed / 5 open)
Full Analysis Report
General Insights
Most common task type: Cluster 4 — refactoring/code-consolidation tasks (em/sub/aic/sous chef tokens, driven by the "PR Sous Chef" prompt template), 245 PRs (24.5% of total), also the highest success rate among large clusters at 91.8%.
Lowest success rate / outlier: Cluster 6 — gh-aw CLI / container-image tasks, 120 PRs, 65.8% merged — 18.2 points below the 84.0% baseline, and the only cluster meeting the outlier threshold (≥15 PRs, ≥10-point gap).
Most complex tasks (by files touched / additions): Cluster 4 (avg 33.7 files, 725 additions) and Cluster 1 (avg 33.4 files, 431 additions) — both still merge at 84%+, so size alone isn't the failure driver here.
Workflow run logs (turn counts, duration, cost) were not available for this run — gh-aw logs output wasn't pre-fetched, so this analysis relies on PR-level signals (comments, reviews, files changed) as complexity proxies instead of turn counts.
Avg comments/reviews: 13.7 / 4.8 — highest engagement of any cluster
Top Keywords: sous chef, em, sub, aic, run
Characteristics: Templated refactor/consolidation prompts (interface extraction, struct dedup, spec-compliance tightening) issued via the "PR Sous Chef" tool. High comment volume reflects iterative back-and-forth, but converges to merge reliably.
Characteristics: A mix of genuine gh-aw CLI/infra work and a large sub-population of container-image / CVE-remediation tasks (ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall, api-proxy, cli-proxy, DIFC proxy) where the actual fix lives in an upstream repo the agent can't touch. See root-cause analysis below.
Top Keywords: copilot, engine, model, workflow, claude
Characteristics: Engine-adapter and model-pricing/inventory maintenance. Second-lowest success rate — likely sensitive to fast-moving upstream model/engine changes, worth a follow-up look if the gap persists.
Templated refactor prompts ("Sous Chef") dominate volume and quality. Cluster 4 is both the largest cluster (24.5%) and the highest-engagement one (13.7 avg comments), yet still merges at 91.8% — heavy review iteration doesn't hurt outcomes when the task is well-scoped.
Small, mechanical diffs merge best. Clusters 2 and 3 have the smallest average diffs (1.8 and 6.5 files) and the two highest success rates (100%, 85.5%). Diff size is a stronger success signal here than task category.
Container/CVE-remediation tasks are a recurring, worsening failure mode. Cluster 6 is the only statistical outlier this run, and it has grown from 60 PRs / 66.7% merge rate (previous analysis, 2026-08-29) to 120 PRs / 65.8% merge rate now — double the volume at essentially the same depressed success rate. See root-cause section below.
Lowest-Merge Cluster Root Cause
Cluster: 6 — gh-aw CLI & container-image tasks
Merge Rate Gap: 65.8% vs 84.0% overall (gap: 18.2 points)
Primary Blocker: Scope/complexity mismatch — task is blocked on a fix that must land in an upstream repository (github/gh-aw-firewall, container base images on ghcr.io, DIFC/api-proxy/cli-proxy images), so the agent cannot produce a real diff in gh-aw itself.
Within Cluster 6, PRs that failed to merge look structurally different from ones that did:
Signal
Not merged (n=41)
Merged (n=79)
Near-zero-diff (<20 additions, ≤2 files changed)
78% (32/41)
15% (12/79)
Zero comments/reviews (never triaged)
54% (22/41)
—
Representative closed PRs are titled things like "[WIP] Update container image to resolve vulnerabilities", "No gh-aw change: Anthropic proxy fix requires gh-aw-firewall", "Document upstream blocker for cli-proxy vulnerability remediation", and "Track upstream remediation for api-proxy 0.28.1 findings" — all opened against a CVE/vulnerability-scan trigger where the actual remediation isn't possible from this repo. A PR triage bot consistently scores these low priority / defer with notes like "DRAFT/WIP checklist PR ... 0 diff yet".
Notably, PR #53674 ("Add task-preflight skill to stop zero-diff retry PRs on container-vuln...") was itself a merged fix explicitly targeting this exact failure mode — confirming maintainers have already identified the pattern. Its effect hasn't yet shown up in the aggregate rate, likely because it was merged partway through this 30-day window and container-vuln-triggered tasks keep recurring on a schedule.
Blocker Category
Count
Share
Notes
Upstream-blocked / near-zero-diff
32
78%
Fix lives in gh-aw-firewall or a base container image, not this repo
CI/test failure
~4
10%
Standard failing-check retries, same as other clusters
Miscellaneous (rate-limit investigation, footer link bug, etc.)
Recommendations
Add a preflight gate for CVE/vulnerability-triggered tasks that checks whether the fix is achievable within gh-aw before opening a PR — skip straight to filing/updating a tracking issue (or commenting on the existing upstream issue) when the remediation depends on gh-aw-firewall or a third-party base image. Add task-preflight skill to stop zero-diff retry PRs on container-vuln and refactor tasks #53674 is a first step; consider extending its scope/coverage given the pattern persists at 2x volume.
Route "no gh-aw change possible" tasks to issues, not PRs. Several closed PRs in Cluster 6 are essentially status updates (docs of an upstream blocker) — an issue comment achieves the same communication without inflating PR-close counts or bot-triage overhead.
Keep leaning on templated, narrowly-scoped prompts (Clusters 2 and 4 patterns) for high-confidence task generation — small-diff, single-purpose prompts consistently outperform broader ones regardless of category.
Watch Cluster 5 (engine/model config, 74.4%) as a secondary, smaller-gap area — not a statistical outlier this run (below the 15-PR/10-point dual threshold isn't the issue; it's borderline at 90 PRs / 9.6-point gap) but worth a follow-up pass if the gap widens next cycle.
Methodology notes
PR bodies were cleaned (code blocks, bot-footer boilerplate, URLs stripped) and vectorized with TF-IDF (unigrams–trigrams, 150 features, min_df=3).
K-means with elbow-method k selection (k=7) grouped the 1,000 prompts; cluster themes are derived from top-weighted TF-IDF terms per centroid, not hand-labeled categories, so keyword lists can look sparse/oddly-tokenized (e.g. "em"/"sub"/"aic" in Cluster 4 comes from a recurring prompt-template abbreviation, not literal words).
Outlier threshold: cluster size ≥ 15 PRs and merge rate ≥ 10 points below the overall 84.0% rate. Only Cluster 6 met both conditions this run.
The PR full-data cache (comments/reviews/commits) was refreshed for 183 PRs that had entered the 30-day window since the last run, and 183 PRs that aged out were pruned. A separate staleness check caught 31 PRs whose cached state/mergedAt disagreed with the fresher search-API snapshot (all had transitioned OPEN→MERGED since the cache was written); those were corrected before clustering using the more recent snapshot.
Workflow-run metrics (turn counts, duration, cost) were unavailable this run (no pre-fetched gh-aw logs output), so complexity is proxied via comments/reviews/files-changed/additions rather than agent turn counts.
Generated by Prompt Clustering Analysis (Run: 33304722135)
Warning
Firewall blocked 1 domain
The following domain was blocked by the firewall during workflow execution:
api.anthropic.com
To allow these domains, add them to the network.allowed list in your workflow frontmatter:
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Summary
Analysis Period: Last 30 days (2026-08-01 – 2026-08-30)
Total Tasks Analyzed: 1,000 copilot-authored PRs
Clusters Identified: 7
Overall Success Rate: 84.0% (840 merged / 155 closed / 5 open)
Full Analysis Report
General Insights
em/sub/aic/sous cheftokens, driven by the "PR Sous Chef" prompt template), 245 PRs (24.5% of total), also the highest success rate among large clusters at 91.8%.gh-aw logsoutput wasn't pre-fetched, so this analysis relies on PR-level signals (comments, reviews, files changed) as complexity proxies instead of turn counts.Cluster Analysis
Cluster 4: Refactoring & code consolidation ("Sous Chef" tasks)
sandbox.agent.runtimewith docker-sbx parity #52119, Consolidate JobStep/JobStepData identical structs in pkg/cli #52120Cluster 3: Test coverage, lint rules & error-message compliance
Cluster 1: Workflow features, safe-outputs & agent jobs
Cluster 6: gh-aw CLI & container-image tasks — OUTLIER (lowest merge rate)
ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall,api-proxy,cli-proxy, DIFC proxy) where the actual fix lives in an upstream repo the agent can't touch. See root-cause analysis below.Cluster 0: Workflow docs & report-formatting normalization
.mdfiles at once.Cluster 5: Engine/model configuration (Copilot, Claude, MAI-Code)
model: inheritedon inline sub-agents #52133, [model-inventory] Add missing MAI-Code model entry and correct Copilot cache-read pricing #52191, Retry Claude connection failures as fresh runs #52199, Route PR code-quality reviews through the Copilot gateway #52377Cluster 2: One-shot "fix failing CI job" tasks
Success Rate by Cluster
Key Findings
Lowest-Merge Cluster Root Cause
github/gh-aw-firewall, container base images onghcr.io, DIFC/api-proxy/cli-proxy images), so the agent cannot produce a real diff ingh-awitself.Within Cluster 6, PRs that failed to merge look structurally different from ones that did:
Representative closed PRs are titled things like "[WIP] Update container image to resolve vulnerabilities", "No gh-aw change: Anthropic proxy fix requires gh-aw-firewall", "Document upstream blocker for cli-proxy vulnerability remediation", and "Track upstream remediation for api-proxy 0.28.1 findings" — all opened against a CVE/vulnerability-scan trigger where the actual remediation isn't possible from this repo. A PR triage bot consistently scores these
low priority / deferwith notes like "DRAFT/WIP checklist PR ... 0 diff yet".Notably, PR #53674 ("Add task-preflight skill to stop zero-diff retry PRs on container-vuln...") was itself a merged fix explicitly targeting this exact failure mode — confirming maintainers have already identified the pattern. Its effect hasn't yet shown up in the aggregate rate, likely because it was merged partway through this 30-day window and container-vuln-triggered tasks keep recurring on a schedule.
Recommendations
gh-awbefore opening a PR — skip straight to filing/updating a tracking issue (or commenting on the existing upstream issue) when the remediation depends ongh-aw-firewallor a third-party base image. Add task-preflight skill to stop zero-diff retry PRs on container-vuln and refactor tasks #53674 is a first step; consider extending its scope/coverage given the pattern persists at 2x volume.Methodology notes
state/mergedAtdisagreed with the fresher search-API snapshot (all had transitioned OPEN→MERGED since the cache was written); those were corrected before clustering using the more recent snapshot.gh-aw logsoutput), so complexity is proxied via comments/reviews/files-changed/additions rather than agent turn counts.Generated by Prompt Clustering Analysis (Run: 33304722135)
Warning
Firewall blocked 1 domain
The following domain was blocked by the firewall during workflow execution:
api.anthropic.comTo allow these domains, add them to the
network.allowedlist in your workflow frontmatter:See Network Configuration for more information.
All reactions