🔍 Agentic Workflow Audit Report - October 20, 2025 (Evening) #2042
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
This discussion was automatically closed because it was created by an agentic workflow more than 1 month ago. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
🔍 Agentic Workflow Audit Report - October 20, 2025 (Evening)
Audit Summary
✅ System Health: GOOD
Overall system health is good with a 77.8% success rate. This represents a 7.8% improvement from yesterday's audit (70% → 77.8%).
Key Positive Findings:
1. Post-Agent Step Failures (Medium Priority)
Two workflows failed in post-processing steps after successful agent execution:
CLI Version Checker (run-18659303991)
create_issueDev Workflow (run-18659069287)
create_agent_taskRoot Cause Analysis:
These failures suggest an issue with the safe-outputs MCP server or GitHub token permissions for post-processing steps. The agent layer is working correctly, but the workflow orchestration steps are failing.
Recommendation:
2. False Positive Error Detection (Low Priority)
Workflows reporting 100+ "errors" that are actually successful:
Root Cause: Error detection patterns in
validate_errors.cjsare matching JavaScript error handling code (e.g.,catch (error), functions with 'error' in their name) rather than actual workflow failures.Impact: Low - doesn't affect workflow execution, just metrics accuracy
Recommendation: Refine error detection regex patterns to exclude code content and focus on actual workflow errors
📊 Performance Metrics
Cost Analysis
Token Usage
Most Efficient Workflows
🔄 Historical Trends
7-Day Success Rate Trend
Recurring Issues (from pattern database)
🎯 Recommendations
Priority: MEDIUM
Action Required: Investigate Post-Agent Step Failures
issues:writepermissionPriority: LOW
Nice to Have: Refine Error Detection
validate_errors.cjspatterns to exclude code content matchesPriority: LOW
Status: Continue Monitoring
📈 Comparison to Previous Audit
Notable: Significant improvement in failure rate (6 → 2) and success rate (+7.8%). Cost increase is justified by successful completion of complex workflows.
🎉 Highlights
📝 Next Steps
Audit conducted by: Agentic Workflow Audit Agent (Claude)
Data source: gh-aw MCP server logs
Cache location:
/tmp/gh-aw/cache-memory/audits/2025-10-20-evening.jsonFor detailed log analysis, see run directories in
/tmp/gh-aw/aw-mcp/logs/Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions