[prompt-clustering] Copilot Agent Prompt Clustering Analysis — 2026-07-13 #45251
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
This discussion has been marked as outdated by Copilot Agent Prompt Clustering Analysis. A newer discussion is available at Discussion #45446. |
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.
-
Summary
Analysis Period: Last 30 days (2026-06-23 → 2026-07-13)
Total PRs Analyzed: 1,000 Copilot coding-agent PRs (
app/copilot-swe-agent)Clusters Identified: 7 (K-means over TF-IDF, k chosen by silhouette)
Overall Merge Success Rate: 78% (778 merged · 212 closed · 10 open)
Seven coherent task families emerge. Two extremes stand out: linter-rule development merges at 93% with tiny diffs, while WIP/placeholder PRs — where the body is a progress stub rather than a real task description — merge at only 33%. Prompt specificity, not task size, is the dominant driver of outcome.
Success rate & effort by cluster
Cluster detail & representative PRs
C6 · Engine & compiler behavior — 349 PRs (35%), 78% success
The largest, broadest family: hardening and behavior-preserving changes to the compiler, engine startup, and job-dependency wiring. Prompts emphasize "preserve existing behavior" and reference concrete code paths/steps. Moderate iteration (3.7 commits, 2.7 reviews).
C3 · Agentic workflow authoring — 176 PRs (18%), 78% success
Authoring and tuning
.github/workflowsagentic definitions and MCP prompts. Lowest review load (1.0) — these are largely self-contained prompt/config edits.get_mefor workflow identity in GitHub MCP prompts #44936 Stop recommendingget_mefor workflow identity in GitHub MCP promptsC0 · Docs, schema & config — 168 PRs (17%), 71% success
Documentation, JSON schema, and config-reference work. Lowest success outside the WIP cluster — schema/reference tasks are prone to review churn over naming and completeness.
issue_intentsruntime support for issue labels, type, and fields #41092 Addissue_intentsruntime support for issue labels, type, and fieldsC1 · PR Sous Chef feature work — 158 PRs (16%), 87% success
Feature work around the PR Sous Chef workflow and safe-outputs. Highest iteration in the set (6.6 commits, 4.4 review threads) yet strong 87% success — heavy review converges rather than kills these.
disclosure-headermessage for AI authorship disclosure in safe-outputs #44497 Adddisclosure-headermessage for AI authorship disclosure in safe-outputsC4 · Linter rule development — 71 PRs (7%), 93% success ⭐
Custom Go/ESLint analyzer rules. Smallest diffs (6 files) and highest success. Tightly-scoped "detect pattern X, flag false-positive Y" prompts are the agent's strongest suit.
NewRequest + Dopaths #42536 httpnoctx: detect context-freeNewRequest + DopathsC2 · Version bumps & smoke fixes — 54 PRs (5%), 70% success
Dependency/version bumps and smoke-test repair. Huge diffs (avg 132 files) from vendored/pinned artifact refreshes; 70% success reflects occasional schema-drift breakage.
sandbox.agent.runtime: gvisorfor gVisor container runtimeC5 · Incomplete / WIP PRs — 24 PRs (2%), 33% success⚠️
Not a task type but a failure mode: PR bodies are progress placeholders ("I will get started... keeping this description up to date",
[WIP]) with no crisp task statement. Lowest commits (1.5), near-zero reviews (0.4), and a 33% merge rate — less than half the fleet average.Key findings
Recommendations
Methodology & limitations
app/copilot-swe-agentPRs, created 2026-06-23 → 2026-07-13, fromgithub/gh-aw. Full data (comments, reviews, commits, files) available for all 1,000.>), fenced/inline code, URLs, and issue refs stripped before vectorization.aw_info.jsonlogs present in this run cover gh-aw's own internal agentic workflows, so per-PR turn/token metrics could not be joined. Commit count is used as the iteration proxy instead.References: §29243602880
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions