objective-impact-report: executive report + restrict PRs to linked-issue outcomes only#39490
Merged
Conversation
…only Co-authored-by: mnkiefer <8320933+mnkiefer@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: mnkiefer <8320933+mnkiefer@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot created this pull request from a session on behalf of
mnkiefer
June 16, 2026 05:16
View session
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the Impact Efficiency Report workflow spec to produce a more executive-friendly report and to avoid distorted scoring by excluding PR outcomes that don’t have a traceable linked closing issue. This refines how outcomes are selected and how the narrative/sections of the generated report are structured.
Changes:
- Exclude PR outcomes without a linked closing issue (
Closes #N) and require a visible exclusion count in the summary. - Add new report sections: Executive Summary and What We Worked On (category rollups, per-category efficiency, exemplars).
- Regenerate the compiled
.lock.ymlto reflect updated metadata/description.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/workflows/objective-impact-report.md | Refines report scope to linked-issue PRs only and expands the report format with executive narrative + category rollups. |
| .github/workflows/objective-impact-report.lock.yml | Regenerated workflow lock with updated description/metadata hashes. |
Copilot's findings
Tip
Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
- Files reviewed: 2/2 changed files
- Comments generated: 3
| ## Goal | ||
|
|
||
| POC: Test whether Impact Efficiency is a more meaningful signal than accepted outcome counts alone. | ||
| Produce a comprehensive executive report on what work was performed, what AIC tokens were spent on, and which outcomes delivered the highest impact. The report must clearly answer: *What did we build, fix, and ship — and was it worth the cost?* |
|
|
||
| ### Executive Summary | ||
|
|
||
| Write 2–4 sentences that directly answer: *What did we work on, what was the highest-impact work, and how efficiently were AIC tokens spent?* Highlight the most impactful objective categories and call out any significant gaps (e.g., large AIC spend with no mapped objective value). |
Comment on lines
+172
to
+174
| - AIC consumed by outcomes in this category | ||
| - Impact Efficiency for this category (total outcome value / AIC consumed) | ||
| - Representative examples (up to 3 linked outcomes) |
This was referenced Jun 16, 2026
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The previous POC report scored PRs without
Closes #Nusing PR labels — dominated by unmappedpr-risk/pr-typemetadata — distorting both the outcome count and the Impact Efficiency metric. The report also lacked any narrative of where effort and AIC actually went.Scope change: PRs require a linked closing issue
Closes #Nare now excluded entirely (no label fallback)New: What We Worked On section
Groups all accepted, mapped outcomes by objective category. Per category:
Executive Summary section
2–4 sentence narrative answering: what was worked on, what was highest-impact, how efficiently was AIC spent.
Interpretation section
Now asks: which category delivered the most value per AIC? Which consumed AIC with little or no mapped value?