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
Across the analyzed runs, agentic workflows in this repository are healthy: a 94.1% success rate with copilot as the dominant engine and PR Sous Chef as the single most active workflow. Coverage caveat: the mission asked for a 7-day window, but log collection hit a GitHub API rate limit after the initial fetch and one continuation attempt, so the analyzed data actually spans only about 10 hours (2026-10-18 22:33 UTC – 2026-10-19 08:39 UTC), not the full week. Treat these numbers as a recent snapshot, not a 7-day trend.
Key Metrics
Metric
Value
Total Runs
290 (with metadata, of 389 run directories collected)
Success Rate
94.1%
Top Engine
copilot (124 runs)
Most Active Workflow
PR Sous Chef (23 runs)
Diagram
The SVG architecture diagram has been committed to docs/src/assets/archivx/agentic-workflows-archivx.svg in the generated pull request.
The SVG can be embedded directly in docs pages using standard markdown image syntax.
Top Failures
View Details
Failures were spread thin — 17 total across 290 analyzed runs, mostly single-occurrence smoke/engine-validation checks rather than a repeating systemic issue:
Workflow
Failures / Runs
Contribution Check
1 / 2
Daily Storify
1 / 1
Daily Container Image Security Scan
1 / 1
The remaining 14 failures were each isolated to a single run of a distinct "Smoke *" engine-harness workflow (e.g. Smoke Gemini, Smoke DeepSeek Harness, Smoke Copilot MAI, Smoke Drive, Smoke Azure PI, Smoke Crush, Smoke Goose) — these exist specifically to validate individual engine/model routes, so isolated failures there are plausibly flaky infra checks rather than product regressions. No cluster had enough repeated occurrences in the collected window to point at a specific root cause with confidence.
Workflow Activity
View Details
Workflow
Runs
Success Rate
PR Sous Chef
23
87%
Test Quality Sentinel
18
100%
Ponytail Reviewer
18
100%
Issue Monster
18
100%
Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer
17
100%
PR Code Quality Reviewer
17
100%
Design Decision Gate 🏗️
16
100%
Avenger
9
100%
Daily Go Test Parallelizer
5
100%
Smoke Copilot Routed
3
100%
Coverage & validation notes
Data collection: 389 run directories fetched (290 with usable aw_info.json/run_summary.json), limited by a GitHub API rate limit on the second continuation call — full 7-day coverage was not achieved.
Diagram geometry: check_diagram.py passed with 0 violations after adding explicit per-category tiers to the architecture graph.
Diagram readability (contrast/clipping in-browser): not verified — every installed browser channel (chrome, msedge, bundled chromium) fails to launch in this sandbox due to a GLIBC_2.43/libasound.so.2 mismatch under /run/awf-lib, which is sandbox infrastructure outside this workflow's control. This is disclosed in the pull request body as well.
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.
Overview
Across the analyzed runs, agentic workflows in this repository are healthy: a 94.1% success rate with copilot as the dominant engine and PR Sous Chef as the single most active workflow. Coverage caveat: the mission asked for a 7-day window, but log collection hit a GitHub API rate limit after the initial fetch and one continuation attempt, so the analyzed data actually spans only about 10 hours (2026-10-18 22:33 UTC – 2026-10-19 08:39 UTC), not the full week. Treat these numbers as a recent snapshot, not a 7-day trend.
Key Metrics
Diagram
The SVG architecture diagram has been committed to
docs/src/assets/archivx/agentic-workflows-archivx.svgin the generated pull request.Top Failures
View Details
Failures were spread thin — 17 total across 290 analyzed runs, mostly single-occurrence smoke/engine-validation checks rather than a repeating systemic issue:
The remaining 14 failures were each isolated to a single run of a distinct "Smoke *" engine-harness workflow (e.g. Smoke Gemini, Smoke DeepSeek Harness, Smoke Copilot MAI, Smoke Drive, Smoke Azure PI, Smoke Crush, Smoke Goose) — these exist specifically to validate individual engine/model routes, so isolated failures there are plausibly flaky infra checks rather than product regressions. No cluster had enough repeated occurrences in the collected window to point at a specific root cause with confidence.
Workflow Activity
View Details
Coverage & validation notes
aw_info.json/run_summary.json), limited by a GitHub API rate limit on the second continuation call — full 7-day coverage was not achieved.check_diagram.pypassed with 0 violations after adding explicit per-category tiers to the architecture graph.GLIBC_2.43/libasound.so.2mismatch under/run/awf-lib, which is sandbox infrastructure outside this workflow's control. This is disclosed in the pull request body as well.All reactions