Files

Taylor Eernisse 4185abe05d docs: add feature ideas catalog, time-decay scoring plan, and timeline issue doc

Ideas catalog (docs/ideas/): 25 feature concept documents covering future
lore capabilities including bottleneck detection, churn analysis, expert
scoring, collaboration patterns, milestone risk, knowledge silos, and more.
Each doc includes motivation, implementation sketch, data requirements, and
dependencies on existing infrastructure. README.md provides an overview and
SYSTEM-PROPOSAL.md presents the unified analytics vision.

Plans (plans/): Time-decay expert scoring design with four rounds of review
feedback exploring decay functions, scoring algebra, and integration points
with the existing who-expert pipeline.

Issue doc (docs/issues/001): Documents the timeline pipeline bug where
EntityRef was missing project context, causing ambiguous cross-project
references during the EXPAND stage.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-02-09 10:16:48 -05:00

2.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

Review Bottleneck Detector

Command: lore bottlenecks [--since <date>]
Confidence: 85%
Tier: 2
Status: proposed
Effort: medium — join MRs with first review note, compute percentiles

What

For MRs in a given time window, compute:

Time to first review — created_at to first non-author DiffNote
Review cycles — count of discussion resolution rounds
Time to merge — created_at to merged_at

Flag MRs above P90 thresholds as bottlenecks.

Why

Review bottlenecks are the #1 developer productivity killer. Making them visible and measurable is the first step to fixing them. This provides data for process retrospectives.

Data Required

All exists today:

merge_requests (created_at, merged_at, author_username)
notes (note_type='DiffNote', author_username, created_at)
discussions (resolved, resolvable)

Implementation Sketch

-- Time to first review per MR
SELECT
    mr.id,
    mr.iid,
    mr.title,
    mr.author_username,
    mr.created_at,
    mr.merged_at,
    p.path_with_namespace,
    MIN(n.created_at) as first_review_at,
    (MIN(n.created_at) - mr.created_at) / 3600000.0 as hours_to_first_review,
    (mr.merged_at - mr.created_at) / 3600000.0 as hours_to_merge
FROM merge_requests mr
JOIN projects p ON mr.project_id = p.id
LEFT JOIN discussions d ON d.merge_request_id = mr.id
LEFT JOIN notes n ON n.discussion_id = d.id
    AND n.note_type = 'DiffNote'
    AND n.is_system = 0
    AND n.author_username != mr.author_username
WHERE mr.created_at >= ?1
  AND mr.state IN ('merged', 'opened')
GROUP BY mr.id
ORDER BY hours_to_first_review DESC NULLS FIRST;

Human Output

Review Bottlenecks (last 30 days)

  P50 time to first review: 4.2h
  P90 time to first review: 28.1h
  P50 time to merge: 2.1d
  P90 time to merge: 8.3d

  Slowest to review:
    !234  Refactor auth       72h to first review  (alice, still open)
    !228  Database migration   48h to first review  (bob, merged in 5d)

  Most review cycles:
    !234  Refactor auth       8 discussion threads, 4 resolved
    !225  API versioning      6 discussion threads, 6 resolved

Downsides

Doesn't capture review done outside GitLab (Slack, in-person)
DiffNote timestamp != when reviewer started reading
Large MRs naturally take longer; no size normalization

Extensions

lore bottlenecks --reviewer alice — how fast does alice review?
Per-project comparison: which project has the fastest review cycle?
Trend line: is review speed improving or degrading over time?

2.5 KiB Raw Blame History