[prompt-analysis] Copilot PR Prompt Analysis - February 11, 2026 #14945
Replies: 4 comments
-
|
💥 WHOOSH! 💥 The Claude Smoke Test Agent just zipped through here at lightning speed! ⚡ KAPOW! All systems tested and operational! BAM! Ready for action! 🦸 Run ID: §21905200267 *vanishes in a cloud of smoke*
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
💥 WHOOSH! 💥 The Smoke Test Agent has swooped through here like a caped crusader! 🦸 ✨ ZAP! ✨ All systems operational! The Claude Engine is firing on all cylinders and ready to save the day! KAPOW! Testing complete at §21905799118 Up, up, and away! 🚀
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
🤖 Beep boop! The Smoke Test Agent stopped by! Just finished validating our Copilot engine across GitHub MCP, Safe Inputs, Serena, file operations, bash tools, and workflow builds. Everything's looking solid! ✨ Tests passed: 8/9 (Playwright timed out but we don't hold it against it 😅) Keep up the great analysis work! 📊🚀 Workflow Run: §21905799110
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
🎭 The smoke test ghost was here! 👻 Just passing through on my automated rounds (workflow run §21906339239). All systems checking out nicely! You know what they say: a well-tested codebase is like a good joke—it always delivers! 🎪 Keep up the excellent work on those Copilot PR patterns! 🚀
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Executive Summary
Analysis of 1,000 Copilot-generated PRs from the last 30 days reveals a 65.9% merge rate, with distinct patterns emerging between successful and unsuccessful prompts. Bug fixes and feature additions show the highest success rates (~66%), while refactoring PRs have slightly lower success rates (62%). Successful prompts are notably more concise (3,314 chars) compared to closed PRs (3,554 chars), suggesting that clarity and focus matter more than verbosity.
Key Finding: The action verbs used in PR titles strongly correlate with outcomes—"add" and "fix" dominate successful PRs, while "verify" appears more frequently in closed PRs, potentially indicating investigative or exploratory work that doesn't always result in mergeable changes.
Key Metrics
Overall Success Rate: 66% (merged PRs / completed PRs)
Category Analysis and Success Rates
Insight: Bug fixes, feature additions, and documentation updates have the highest success rates (66%+), while refactoring has a moderately lower rate (62%). This suggests that well-defined, concrete changes are more likely to merge than architectural improvements.
View Detailed Prompt Characteristics Analysis
Prompt Length Analysis
Finding: Successful prompts are 7% shorter on average. This suggests that concise, focused prompts perform better than lengthy, verbose ones. Excessive detail may indicate uncertainty or scope creep.
Action Verb Analysis
Most Common Verbs in MERGED PRs:
Most Common Verbs in CLOSED PRs:
Key Difference: "Verify" appears in the top 5 for closed PRs but not merged ones. This suggests that exploratory or investigative PRs (those that verify/validate assumptions) are less likely to result in merged code changes.
Top Keywords Comparison
MERGED PR Titles:
mcp,cli,validation,tool,agentadd,fix,removeworkflow,testCLOSED PR Titles:
verify,failure,project✅ Successful Prompt Patterns
Characteristics of High-Success PRs:
Concrete, Actionable Tasks
Problem-Solution Structure
Shorter, Focused Prompts
Action Verbs that Signal Clear Intent
❌ Unsuccessful Prompt Patterns
Characteristics of Closed PRs:
Exploratory or WIP Work
Longer Prompts with Excessive Detail
Vague "Update" Operations
Investigative Verbs
Key Insights and Patterns
1. Specificity Wins
Successful prompts reference specific files, errors, versions, or components:
2. Problem-Solution Over Investigation
Prompts that clearly state a problem and propose a solution have higher success rates than those that investigate or verify:
3. Conciseness Signals Clarity
7% shorter prompts correlate with higher merge rates. This suggests:
4. Documentation and Testing Are Highly Mergeable
Documentation (66.1% success) and testing (65.7% success) PRs have similar success rates to bug fixes, indicating that:
Recommendations
Based on the analysis, here are best practices for writing Copilot prompts that lead to successful PR merges:
✅ DO:
Be Specific and Concrete
Use Action-Oriented Verbs
Keep Prompts Focused
Structure as Problem → Solution
Choose High-Success Categories
❌ AVOID:
Exploratory or WIP Prompts
Vague "Update" Requests
Over-Detailed Prompts
Unfocused Refactoring
View Example Prompts: Good vs Poor
✅ Example: Excellent Prompt (Merged)
PR #14901: "Fix error messages not shown in gh aw compile output"
Prompt Preview:
Why It Succeeded:
gh aw compile)✅ Example: Good Prompt (Merged)
PR #14899: "Extract duplicate expires preprocessing logic into shared helper"
Prompt Preview:
Why It Succeeded:
❌ Example: Poor Prompt (Closed)
PR #14900: "Verify roles: all is valid and compiles correctly"
Prompt Preview:
Why It Failed:
❌ Example: Poor Prompt (Closed)
PR #14905: "[WIP] Fix MCP configuration to enforce tool allowlist"
Prompt Preview:
Why It Failed:
Historical Trends
Note: This is the first comprehensive analysis with the new tracking system. Future reports will show week-over-week trends and pattern changes.
Methodology
Data Collection:
app/copilot-swe-agentCategorization:
Analysis Techniques:
Next Steps
References:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions