[copilot-session-insights] Daily Copilot Agent Session Analysis — 2026-02-19 #16951
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
🤖 Smoke test agent was here! 🚀 Just passing through to say hello from the smoke test run §22203744281. All systems nominal, circuits humming, and the bots are doing their thing! beep boop 🤖✨
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
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.
-
This report analyzes 50 GitHub Actions workflow runs triggered by 7 Copilot coding agent tasks in the
github/gh-awrepository on 2026-02-19. Note: this is the first run of this analysis workflow, so no historical trend comparison is available yet. Future runs will show trend data across multiple days.Key Metrics
Running Copilot coding agentadd-toolannotationsreview bot📈 Session Trends Analysis
Completion Patterns
Of the 7 Copilot tasks, 3 had all associated workflows fully completed (43%), while 4 still had in-progress runs at snapshot time — predominantly the Copilot agent runs themselves, which were still executing. All 39 completed review runs concluded with
action_required, confirming the system's human-in-the-loop design is working as intended.Duration & Efficiency
Workflow durations are extremely short (median: 0 min, average: 0.17 min), reflecting the fast execution of review bots. The
fix-patch-generation-bugbranch is the most complex task with 15 workflow runs — double the typical 7-8 — indicating the Copilot agent made at least two commits, triggering two full rounds of review automation.Task Breakdown
View All 7 Copilot Tasks
fix-patch-generation-bugadd-output-schema-to-toolsmove-discussion-to-announcementsupgrade-go-sdk-to-v131refactor-root-extraction-mcpadd-toolannotations-to-server-toolsupdate-awf-dependency-versionSuccess Factors ✅
Rich Automated Review Ecosystem: The repository runs 9+ specialized review workflows (Scout, Q, /cloclo, Archie, PR Nitpick Reviewer, AI Moderator, Content Moderation, Security Review Agent, Grumpy Code Reviewer). Every Copilot PR gets comprehensive multi-angle automated review before human review.
Intelligent Workflow Routing: Security-sensitive tasks (
upgrade-go-sdk-to-v131,refactor-root-extraction-mcp) correctly triggered the Security Review Agent and Grumpy Code Reviewer, while simpler maintenance tasks did not.Fast Review Turnaround: Review bots complete in under 1.5 minutes, enabling rapid feedback cycles for the Copilot agent.
Human-in-the-Loop by Default: The
action_requiredconclusion on all reviews ensures no automated PR merges without human approval.Failure Signals⚠️
Conversation Logs Unavailable: The
ghCLI authentication was not configured for conversation transcript access. This limits behavioral analysis to metadata only — we cannot assess agent reasoning quality, tool usage effectiveness, or error recovery strategies.Iterative Bug Fix (Double Review Round): The
fix-patch-generation-bugbranch triggered 15 workflow runs vs. the typical 7-8, indicating the agent made at least 2 separate commits. This could signal the agent required iteration to achieve the correct fix.Stale/Skipped Branch:
add-toolannotations-to-server-toolshad all 5 review workflows skipped, suggesting the PR was in a state where reviews were bypassed. This could indicate a stale branch that had already been reviewed and is awaiting merge.Prompt Quality Analysis 📝
Inferred Task Complexity
fix-patch-generation-bug— name suggests a targeted bug fix but the iterative commits suggest either complexity or unclear requirementsadd-output-schema-to-tools,move-discussion-to-announcements— triggered standard 7-8 workflow runsTask Type Distribution
Notable Observations
Loop Detection
Tool Usage
Workflow Ecosystem Health
action_requiredpattern is universal and expectedExperimental Analysis
Standard analysis only — no experimental strategy this run (random value: 38, threshold: 30)
Future runs may apply one of: Semantic Clustering, Temporal Analysis, Code Quality Metrics, User Interaction Patterns, or Cross-Session Learning.
Actionable Recommendations
For Users Writing Task Descriptions
Include acceptance criteria: Task names like
fix-patch-generation-bugare concise but may not convey enough detail for single-pass implementation. Adding expected behavior and test cases in the task description can reduce iterative commits.GeneratePatch()function should return valid unified diffs; currently returns empty output for binary files. Add test for binary file case."Reference specific files: When asking for refactoring or feature additions, including the file path and function name helps reduce ambiguity.
Specify test expectations: Explicitly mentioning whether tests should be added/updated helps the agent plan commits that pass CI in one shot.
For System Improvements
Conversation log access: Enable gh CLI authentication in the
copilot-session-data-fetchworkflow to capture agent conversation transcripts. This would unlock behavioral analysis (reasoning quality, tool usage, error recovery).Iteration tracking: Add metadata tracking for how many commits the agent made per branch. The current 15 vs 8 run count comparison is an indirect signal; direct tracking would be more reliable.
Skipped review tracking: Investigate branches where all reviews are skipped (
add-toolannotations-to-server-tools) to ensure they are not getting lost in the pipeline.For Tool Development
Trends Over Time
No historical data available — this is the first run of the session analysis workflow. Baseline metrics for future comparison:
Statistical Summary
Next Steps
copilot-session-data-fetchto enable conversation transcript analysisadd-toolannotations-to-server-toolsbranch (all reviews skipped)References:
Analysis generated automatically on 2026-02-19 | Run ID: 22202491155 | Workflow: Copilot Session Insights
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions