4185abe05d
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>
89 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
89 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
# 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:
|
|
1. **Time to first review** — created_at to first non-author DiffNote
|
|
2. **Review cycles** — count of discussion resolution rounds
|
|
3. **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
|
|
|
|
```sql
|
|
-- 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?
|