Repository navigation
[detection-analysis] Detection Analysis Report — 2026-10-24 #71716
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
|
This discussion has been marked as outdated by Detection Analysis Report. A newer discussion is available at Discussion #71958. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Summary
2026-10-23T23:23Z→2026-10-24T23:23Zgh-aw-detection: false): 2 (0.5%)Note
No misconfigured
gh-aw-detectionworkflows were detected in this window. Detection is enabled (default) on effectively every workflow; only two single-run workflows explicitly opt out, and neither exceeds the 3-run/7-day threshold within the 24h data available here.Comparison Chart
Misconfigured Workflows
No misconfigured workflows detected in this window.
View All Run Metrics
132 distinct workflows produced executed runs in this window. Full per-workflow breakdown (detection status, success rate, average token usage):
Two workflows with
gh-aw-detection: falsein this window: Daily GitHub Docs SEO Optimizer (1 run, success) and Engine Conformance Codex (1 run, failure — unrelatedagent_logicfailure, not a detection-job failure). Neither currently exceeds 3 runs/7 days based on available data, so neither is flagged.View Historical Trend
Detection-enabled run volume and success rate have both trended upward over the past two weeks (success rate recovering from ~75-80% in early October to ~94% today), while regular (opt-out) runs remain a small, noisy minority most days.
Recommendations
gh-aw-detection: false. If their run frequency grows past 3 runs/7 days, they should be re-reviewed for rule-1 misconfiguration (detection disabled on a high-frequency workflow).run.json(non-execution / obsolete-PR runs with noaw_info.json/run_summary.json); these were correctly excluded from the detection comparison since they never reached theagent/detectionjobs.References:
All reactions