Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Computes DORA delivery-performance metrics from git and GitHub API. Use when assessing deployment frequency, lead time, or change failure rate.
.claude/skills/athola-dora-metrics/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 19% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 1% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -28% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 22% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 43% | 0% |
Compute the four DORA delivery-performance metrics (Deployment Frequency, Lead Time for Changes, Change Failure Rate, and Time to Restore Service) from local git history and the GitHub API. Classify each metric into Elite, High, Medium, or Low using thresholds from DORA's State of DevOps research, and surface the single weakest dimension as the next improvement target.
deploys) improve velocity and stability or quietly regress them.
minister:release-health-gates.rather than delivery-performance evidence.
DORA assumes one.
bash python3 -m minister.dora_metrics --window 30 --branch main
bottleneck pointer.
filtering to AI-authored PRs (e.g., --failure-label ai-bug), once across all PRs. Compare the CFR delta. See modules/agentic-workflow-signals.md.
--json into the tracker so trend data persistsalongside release-health-gates snapshots.
windows or comparing before/after an agentic-workflow change:
bash # Collect weekly snapshots into a TSV, then plot all four metrics # week<TAB>metric<TAB>value kuva line trends.tsv --x week --y value --color-by metric \ --title "DORA trends (30-day windows)" -o dora-trends.svg
# Quick terminal preview without writing a file kuva line trends.tsv --x week --y value --color-by metric --terminal
kuva reads TSV/CSV from stdin or a file path. Install once: cargo install kuva --features cli. No project source changes required. See kuva for the full plot-type reference.
| Flag | Default | Meaning | |------|---------|---------| | --window | 30 | Measurement window in days | | --branch | HEAD | Production branch | | --failure-label | bug | GitHub label marking prod failures | | --json | off | Emit JSON instead of human-readable | | --repo-path | cwd | Repository directory |
A short text report or JSON payload with:
4.2/day, 2.1 hours, 8%).See modules/thresholds.md for the complete table. Brief summary:
| Metric | Elite | High | Medium | Low | |--------|-------|------|--------|-----| | DF | >= 1/day | >= 1/week | >= 1/month | < 1/month | | LT | <= 1 day | <= 1 week | <= 1 month | > 1 month | | CFR | <= 15% | <= 30% | <= 45% | > 45% | | TRS | < 1 hour | < 1 day | < 1 week | >= 1 week |
Confirm a DORA report is real by re-running the script over a narrower window and checking that DF and LT scale predictably. For CFR and TRS, sample two or three of the contributing GitHub issues and verify the bug (or chosen) label is correct on each.
Unit tests live in plugins/minister/tests/unit/test_dora_metrics.py. Each tier boundary is exercised at the threshold, so future contributors who adjust an inequality (> vs >=) trigger a failure rather than a silent regression. Add new tests at the threshold when extending classification logic.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-22 | pass→pass | 15,201 | 7,556 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,248 | 2,191 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 9,618 | 4,965 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,650 | 1,344 | -19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 14,507 | 12,333 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,657 | 3,152 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 22,434 | 5,384 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,278 | 1,405 | -67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 8,490 | 2,541 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,475 | 1,496 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 5,483 | 3,182 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 969 | 1,604 | +66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 10,680 | 2,457 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,989 | 1,438 | -28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 4,097 | 2,434 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 697 | 1,460 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 6,574 | 1,881 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,232 | 1,378 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 4,972 | 2,438 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 871 | 1,458 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 7,965 | 2,000 | -75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,279 | 1,380 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 14,483 | 3,393 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,293 | 1,683 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 6,756 | 3,357 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,040 | 1,686 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 7,155 | 2,273 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,216 | 1,479 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 5,125 | 1,556 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 900 | 1,286 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 6,346 | 1,840 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,115 | 1,349 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 7,741 | 2,087 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,289 | 1,404 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 15,852 | 2,627 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,463 | 1,486 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 9,950 | 2,798 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,845 | 1,605 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 16,705 | 8,461 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,605 | 2,557 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 15,734 | 4,614 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,772 | 1,766 | -36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 13,679 | 9,512 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,091 | 2,429 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 20 counted toward the lift figure. The other 2 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +50 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 20 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.