Run any Skill in Manus with one click

engineering-pulse

Stars2

Forks0

UpdatedJuly 2, 2026 at 03:18

Cross-repo engineering productivity analysis with bounty estimation. Use when the user wants contributor stats, PR velocity, workload distribution, team performance snapshots, or bounty payout projections.

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Run Skill in Manus

Source

tobilafinhangit

tobilafinhangit/skill-master

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Run Skill in Manus

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

Software DevelopersComputer and Mathematical Occupations·SOC 15-1252

File Explorer

5 files

SKILL.md

readonly

Engineering Pulse — Contributor Productivity & Bounty Analysis

Generates a cross-repo contributor analysis from merged PR data with bounty payout estimates. Designed for weekly standups, monthly reviews, quarterly performance cycles, delegation planning, and bounty reconciliation.

Philosophy: Deflation bias. This is an AI-assisted workflow — agents write most of the code, engineers supervise and validate. We pay for judgment and output, not volume. When in doubt, the lower tier wins.

Context budget — the heavy data stays in the script, never the conversation

This skill pulls O(N) raw data: gh pr list (up to 500 PRs/repo across several repos), a gh pr view per above-S-tier PR, and the ~800-card Fizzy comment scan (paginated to exhaustion). If that raw JSON lands in the agent's context window, the run bloats and can crash — and unlike a script's process memory, text in the conversation is billed every turn for the rest of the run and can't be evicted.

The rule: the self-contained Python script is where all that data lives. It shells out to gh/Fizzy, holds the PR JSON and comment threads in its own memory, and prints only the finished report tables. The agent context should only ever hold the script and its final markdown output — never raw gh pr list / gh pr view / /comments.json payloads. This is the engineering-pulse analogue of the per-card subagent fan-out the bulk Fizzy skills use: a disposable worker (here, the script process) absorbs the heavy text and returns a compact result.

Concretely:

Do not run gh pr list … / gh pr view … / Fizzy fetches as standalone Bash calls whose JSON streams back into the conversation. Let the script do the fetching in-process and emit only tables.
If you must debug a raw pull interactively, redirect to a file (gh pr list … > /tmp/ep_prs.json) and inspect with jq + a few rows — never cat the whole array into the reply (same discipline as the supabase-data-access rule).
The gh pr view per-PR fan-out (Step 2) and the 800-card comment scan (Step 8 ops detection) are the two biggest sources — both are already designed to run inside the script's ThreadPoolExecutor; keep them there.
Verify with submodules/skill-master/scripts/measure-skill-run.ts — parent peak context should stay flat run-to-run regardless of how many repos/cards are scanned, because the volume lives in the script, not the conversation. A parent peak that grows with batch size means raw data is leaking into context.

When to Use

Weekly: quick velocity check — who shipped, who's blocked?
Monthly: workload balance + bounty payout preview
Quarterly: performance review input — PR volume, scope, growth trajectory
Ad-hoc: "who could take on more?" or "who needs clearer task assignments?"
Bounty reconciliation: "what does each dev earn this period?"
Explicitly via /engineering-pulse

Repos to Analyze

The repo list is config-driven — read it from repos.yaml next to this SKILL.md. Each entry has name, path, and integration_branches. Adding a new repo is a single YAML append; no skill code changes.

# repos.yaml
repos:
  - name: audition
    path: /Users/USER/code/repos/vettedai-audition-supabase-version
    integration_branches: [main, lovable-staging]
  - name: nts
    path: /Users/USER/code/repos/nts-event-platform-supabase
    integration_branches: [main, staging]
  # ... append more here

Target branches: Only count PRs merged into one of the per-repo integration_branches. PRs between feature branches are excluded. Each repo can have its own integration branch (e.g., lovable-staging for audition, verify-deployments for congrats, staging for nts).

If a repo path doesn't exist on disk or gh returns auth errors for it, log a warning and continue with the remaining repos — never block the whole report on one missing repo.

Repo-allowlist drift check (run every report — the sustainable scaling mechanism)

Auto-discovery across "everywhere an engineer works" is impossible by construction: from the founder's gh only his orgs (Generous-Circle, congratsai, Vetted-AI) + his own repos are visible — engineers' personal repos are not. So repos.yaml is a curated allowlist, never auto-inclusion. Make curation cheap: each run, enumerate org repos pushed within the window, diff against the allowlist, and emit a "new repos not in allowlist → project or ignore?" prompt for the manager (~30-second monthly triage):

for org in Generous-Circle congratsai Vetted-AI; do
  gh repo list "$org" --limit 100 --json nameWithOwner,pushedAt \
    --jq ".[] | select(.pushedAt >= \"$WINDOW_START\") | .nameWithOwner"
done   # diff against repos.yaml; anything new → ASK, never auto-add

Fails safe: an unknown repo is flagged + not measured, never silently counted. Personal-owned project work (e.g. Elvis's automation code, currently on a personal repo) is measured via its Fizzy board (the qa-automation board in ops-rates.yaml), or moved into an org to become visible — never crawled. Known parked/dormant repos to keep ignoring: Vetted-AI/recruiters-ring (sole PR by nzommmo, off roster), Generous-Circle/GC-Back (dormant).

No-silent-zero rule (coverage honesty)

Until a coverage gap is closed, the report MUST print an explicit "not measured" line for that surface/person rather than implying a zero. A silent zero reads as "did nothing"; it usually means "we didn't look there." Concretely this covers: engineers with a missing fizzy_user_id (Liban, wizzfi1 — ops undetected), repos flagged by the drift check, and dormant/un-scanned boards. When a number looks shockingly low, suspect coverage before performance.

Step 1: Determine Time Window

Parse the user's argument to set the analysis window:

Argument	`--since`	`--until`
`weekly`	7 days ago	today
`monthly`	30 days ago	today
`quarterly`	90 days ago	today
`--since 2026-01-01`	2026-01-01	today
`--since 2026-01-01 --until 2026-02-28`	2026-01-01	2026-02-28
(no argument)	all time	today

Step 2: Pull Merged PR Data

For each repo, run via gh CLI:

gh pr list --state merged --limit 500 \
  --json number,title,author,createdAt,mergedAt,additions,deletions,changedFiles,labels

Additional data for flagging (PRs above S-tier): For PRs with changedFiles > 3 OR (additions+deletions) > 100, also fetch:

gh pr view {number} --json files,reviews,commits

This enables revert detection, file-path analysis, and review tracking.

If a repo returns a 502 error (GitHub GraphQL overload), retry once without the body field and with --limit 200. If it still fails, note it and proceed with available data.

Filter by time window: After fetching, filter PRs where mergedAt falls within the --since / --until range.

Exclude bots: Filter out authors where is_bot: true or login matches: dependabot, renovate, github-actions, lovable-dev.

Exclude founder: tobilafinhangit is tracked in a separate "Founder Activity" section — not included in the bounty table. Founder output is sweat equity, not bounty-eligible.

Step 2b: `source: git-log` repos (no GitHub PRs)

Some repos have source: git-log in repos.yaml — they have no GitHub PRs (gh pr list returns []) because work is squash-pushed straight to the integration branch (e.g. Joy's vetted-gtm, personal repo, direct-to-main). For these repos, do not call gh pr list; instead derive one PR-equivalent per non-merge commit on the integration branch:

# One record per commit: header line then a numstat block per commit
git -C <repo.path> log <integration_branch> --no-merges --since=<since> --until=<until> \
  --numstat --date=iso-strict --format='__COMMIT__%H|%an|%ae|%cI|%s'

Map each commit to a PR-equivalent for the same tiering/bounty pipeline as Step 3+:

author → match the commit author (%an / %ae) against engineers.yaml (its github login, or a git_name/git_email if present). Joy's commits are authored JoyyCLangat, which equals her github key.
changedFiles → number of numstat rows for the commit (after the deductions in Step 3).
additions / deletions → summed numstat columns (binary files show -; treat as 0 lines, still 1 file).
mergedAt → committer date %cI (used for the time-window filter, same as PR mergedAt).
title / number → subject %s (the trailing (#NNNN) is a Fizzy card, not a GitHub PR — label it as such in tables, don't link it as a PR).

Everything downstream is identical: deductions, LOWER-tier-wins classification, inflate-suspect flagging, bot/founder exclusion, and per-engineer bounty_start_date filtering all apply to git-log records exactly as to gh-pr records. There is no gh pr view enrichment for these repos (no reviews/commits API) — note that in the report where review-based signals would otherwise appear.

Step 3: Classify PR Size Tiers

Each PR gets a tier based on scope signals:

Tier	Files Changed	Lines (Add+Del)	Rate (KES)	Interpretation
S (Small)	1–3	< 300	500	Bug fix, config tweak, copy change
M (Medium)	4–10	300–800	1,000	Feature slice, focused refactor
L (Large)	11–25	800–2,500	2,000	Full feature, multi-file refactor
XL (Extra Large)	25+	2,500+	3,500	Major feature, migration, restructure

Classification rule: LOWER tier wins

Default: A PR is classified by the lower tier when dimensions disagree. This prevents inflation from trivial multi-file touches or verbose code.

There is no critical-path override. Touching a complex file does not make a PR larger — the volume of actual work (files changed, lines written) does. What gets rewarded is output, not which part of the codebase was touched.

When dimensions disagree by 2+ tiers (e.g., files=L but lines=S), flag the PR as inflate-suspect.

Examples:

2 files + 200 lines → files=S, lines=M → S (default deflation)
15 files + 80 lines → files=L, lines=S → S + inflate-suspect flag
12 files + 800 lines → both L → L

Deductions: what does NOT count

Before classification, subtract from the line count:

Generated/vendor files: package-lock.json, yarn.lock, deno.lock, *.generated.*, *.min.js, src/integrations/supabase/types.ts
Lockfile-only PRs: If the only changed file is a lockfile, classify as noise (not S)
Migrations (.sql files) ARE counted — they represent real schema work

Note: The copy-paste deduction (>60% identical lines) is only applied when full diffs are available. If gh pr diff was not fetched for a PR, skip this check and note it in the report.

Advisory flags

Most flags are informational only — the manager reviews during the 48-hour review period (Step 7). Exception: split-suspect is a soft auto-deduction (see below).

split-suspect: 3+ S-tier PRs from the same author merged within 24 hours with related titles (shared prefix or keywords) — likely one deliverable split into micro-PRs. Soft auto-deduction: collapse the group into a single S payout (500 KES total instead of N × 500). Show in the report as split-suspect: merged [N] PRs → 1 × S. The manager can override during the review period with a one-line justification — but the default is collapsed.
inflate-suspect: Files/lines disagree by 2+ tiers (e.g., 20 files but 50 lines)
churn-suspect: PR where deletions > 80% of additions AND net codebase change ≈ 0 (moved/renamed code). A PR that net deletes code (additions - deletions is significantly negative) is cleanup — not flagged, this is valuable work
generated-heavy: >50% of lines are in files matching generated/vendor patterns
revert-pair: PR title starts with "Revert" or body contains "reverts #NNN". Both the original PR and the revert are flagged. Net value = zero — exclude both from bounty
duplicate-suspect: >80% of commits overlap with a previously closed (not merged) PR from the same author

Step 4: Detect "Verify Deployment" / CI Noise

Count PRs with titles matching patterns like:

Verify deploy*
Merge branch* (auto-merge PRs)
Exact duplicate titles from the same author within 5 minutes

Report these separately as CI/deploy noise so they don't inflate feature velocity.

Step 5: Generate the Report

Produce these sections as clean markdown tables:

5a. Per-Author Summary (excludes founder)

5b. Founder Activity (separate section)

5c. PR Size Distribution

| Author | S | M | L | XL | Flagged | One row per author. Only count feature PRs (exclude CI noise). "Flagged" = count of PRs with advisory flags.

5d. Velocity

5e. Repo Breakdown

5f. Bounty Estimate

| Author | S × 500 | M × 1,000 | L × 2,000 | XL × 3,500 | Gross (KES) | Revert Deductions | Net (KES) |

Gross = sum of (tier count × tier rate) for all feature PRs.

Automatic Deductions:

revert-pair — both the original and the revert are excluded (zero net value)
split-suspect — collapsed to 1 × S payout. Show the saving: e.g., "split-suspect: 3 PRs → 1 × S (saved 1,000 KES)"

All other flags are advisory — the manager decides during review.

Net = Gross minus revert-pair deductions.

Retainer / shadow-bounty split (Fix 3 + Fix 5). Before totaling:

For each employment: retainer engineer, the bounty + ops Net renders as Shadow-bounty (not paid — retainer): X KES with the footnote: "Floor, not ceiling. Infra/security/investigation work is under-measured by line/task proxies — see the Capacity & Invisible Work section and value note." This is internal-only — never include it in an engineer-facing statement.
retainer_role: qa engineers: still surface their code output as shadow-bounty in the Retainer ROI table (§5f-ter) — a QA person building automation tooling (Elvis in vetted-automation) is real output worth tracking (Tobi, 2026-07-01, superseding the earlier "suppress entirely"). But their shadow figure understates a QA role — always show it alongside their QA throughput (manual-QA sessions + tickets tested, §5g-bis), never as their standalone value.
Team total payable EXCLUDES all shadow-bounty. Compute "Team total payable" = sum of Net for employment: bounty engineers only. Show the shadow-bounty total separately as a clearly-labeled non-payable line, e.g. Shadow-bounty (retained engineers, not paid): Y KES.

5f-ter. Retainer Output — ROI signal (standard monthly section)

Render this table every run for every employment: retainer engineer. It's the durable monthly artefact for gauging retainer output against retainer cost — not a payout, and never shown to the engineer. Apply the same warranty/deliverable-collapse rules as bounty (so it's a conservative floor).

Engineer	Role	Code output (KES)	Ops/QA (KES)	Shadow total	vs retainer cost

Code output = collapsed shadow-bounty from merged PRs / git-log commits (same tiering + collapse as bounty).
Ops/QA = ops-category total (pr-review, manual-QA, etc.) from the Fizzy scan.
Shadow total = Code + Ops/QA.
vs retainer cost = round(100 × shadow_total / retainer_kes_month) (default 30,000). This is the ROI ratio.
Sort by shadow total desc. Add the standing caveat verbatim: "Floor, not ceiling — infra/security/QA work is under-read by line/task proxies. A low % (e.g. an infra/security engineer at 25%) is almost always under-measurement, not low output. Read alongside §5g-bis."
For retainer_role: qa, append a one-line callout with their QA throughput (manual-QA session count + tickets tested) so the % is never read as their value.

5g. Reviews Given

| Author | Reviews Given | Substantive Reviews (with comments) | Avg Review Turnaround (hours) | Pull from gh api review data. This section is informational — review work is not bounty-compensated in v2 but is surfaced so the manager can factor it into payout decisions.

5g-bis. Capacity & Invisible Work (signal, not payment)

This section captures the work that line/task proxies systematically under-read — infra, security, investigation, review, QA — as robust structural counts, never keyword-based paid categories. Show it next to shadow-bounty so a low shadow figure is immediately contextualized (a low number for an infra/security engineer is almost always under-measurement, not low output — strategy §2). One row per engineer:

Computation:

PRs reviewed — count of distinct cards where the engineer authored a matched pr-review comment. Already detected; just surface the deduped-per-card count (Fix 5 dedup). Cheap.
Tickets resolved-by-comment — count of cards the engineer closed or where their comment drove closure. Detection: their authored comment matches closing as|closed as|resolved —|superseded by|obsolete|no action needed|stale near the start, OR they are the actor on the card's closure event. This is a count, not a paid category — it captures investigation/triage (Theo's largest contribution type) without parsing prose.
QA verdicts (tickets tested) — from the qa-verdict surface (structural column-move into/out of a QA column + format-tolerant regex). Distinct cards. For qa-role retainers this is the primary capacity measure. (May reality: Elvis ≈ 227 verdicts across 190 distinct cards — the old manual-qa keywords saw 7.)
Open / in-flight PRs (+ lines) — gh pr list --state open --author <login> per repo, summing additions+deletions. Surfaces work trapped in review/CI (Kenn's ~9k unmerged lines would show here). Counts and lines only — do not tier or pay.

These four are explicitly signal, not payment. Do NOT convert them into bounty subtotals. They contextualize shadow-bounty and inform the conversion / capacity decision (strategy §4, §6). For any engineer or surface not actually scanned (missing fizzy_user_id, repo outside the allowlist), print "not measured" in the cell — never an implied 0 (strategy coverage rule: a silent zero reads as "did nothing"; it usually means "we didn't look there").

5h. Summary Table

< 1 PR/month — less than 1 feature PR per month (averaged over window)
multi-repo — contributes to 2+ repos
XL-heavy — more than 50% of PRs are XL tier
noise-heavy — more than 30% of PRs are CI/deploy noise
Advisory flags from Step 3 (split-suspect, inflate-suspect, etc.)

5i. Management Insights

After the tables, add a Management Insights section with actionable observations:

Workload balance — Is one person carrying the team? Are others underutilized?
Delegation opportunities — Based on repo breakdown, who could take on more in an underserved repo?
PR hygiene — Anyone consistently shipping XL PRs that should be broken down? Anyone with a high noise ratio?
Growth signals — Is anyone's velocity increasing or decreasing compared to prior periods? (Only if prior data available)
Risk flags — Single points of failure (one person owns an entire repo), idle contributors, or bus factor concerns.
Bounty ROI — For each contributor, is the estimated payout proportional to the value delivered? Flag anyone where the bounty seems disproportionate to output quality.
Blind spots — This report measures merged code output only. Investigation, debugging, architecture review, incident response, code review, and mentoring are NOT captured. The manager should adjust payouts for contributors whose primary value is diagnostic or architectural.
Conversion watch (auto-flag). Auto-flag any bounty engineer (employment: bounty) whose trailing figure (bounty + ops Net, ideally over 2–3 months) ≥ ~70% of a reference retainer (default 30k, i.e. ≥ ~21k) as a conversion candidate. Surface the §4 three-gate checklist for the manager: (1) shadow-bounty ≥ ~70–80% of retainer cost over a trailing 2–3 months, (2) capacity headroom looks real (velocity, multi-repo spread, responsiveness), (3) quality is clean (low revert rate, low QA-fail rate, few flags). Below the bar, keep them on bounty — it's cheaper, flexible, self-limiting. (May: Daniella ≈ 29.6k clears the gate today; next is DBusuru ~16k, not close.)
Per-retained-engineer value note. For each employment: retainer engineer, render a templated 1–2 line free-text field (value_note, filled monthly by the manager) — e.g. "Oussama — webhook hardening + memory-exhaustion fix; high-leverage security, low line-count by nature." This is the only judgement of an infra/security engineer's value that should carry weight; the shadow-bounty is a floor, never a ceiling (strategy §2, §5). Leave a blank placeholder line if the manager hasn't supplied one this period.
Coverage / "not measured" honesty. Explicitly list every surface or person we did NOT scan this run (missing fizzy_user_id, repos outside the allowlist, dormant boards). Print "not measured" for each — never let an un-scanned person read as a zero. When a number looks shockingly low, suspect coverage before performance.

Step 6: Save the Report

Reports are saved based on their type — draft (mid-month check-ins) or payout (end-of-month final).

Report types

Type	When	File name	Purpose
Draft	Any weekly/ad-hoc run during the month	`reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-DD-draft.md`	Velocity check, early flags, no payout implications
Payout	End of calendar month (run on the 28th)	`reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-payout.md`	The official bounty report for that month's cycle

Auto-detect: If the user runs /engineering-pulse monthly and today is the 28th–31st of the month, default to payout type. Otherwise default to draft. The user can override with --payout or --draft flags.

Draft reports

reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-DD-draft.md

Frontmatter includes type: draft. The bounty table header reads: "DRAFT — not for payout. Mid-month check-in only."

Draft reports do NOT trigger the review period. They're for the manager's eyes to course-correct (e.g., "Kariuki11 has zero PRs this month — check if he's blocked").

Payout reports

reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-payout.md

Frontmatter includes type: payout. This is the single source of truth for that month's bounties.

Window: Always 1st of the month → last day of the month (calendar month). The --since/--until are auto-set:

--since = first day of current month (e.g., 2026-03-01)
--until = today (or last day of month if running on the 28th+)

Cumulative: If draft reports were generated during the month, the payout report supersedes all of them. There is no "roll-up" — the payout report recalculates everything from scratch for the full calendar month.

Create the directory if it doesn't exist. Include a YAML frontmatter header:

---
report: engineering-pulse
type: payout
generated: 2026-03-28
window: 2026-03-01 to 2026-03-28
repos: [audition, congrats, backend]
total_prs: 142
contributors: 6
bounty_rates_kes: { S: 500, M: 1000, L: 2000, XL: 3500 }
classification: deflation-bias
review_period_ends: 2026-03-30
payout_date: 2026-03-31
---

Step 7: Monthly Payout Cycle

Payouts happen at the end of each calendar month. The timeline:

28th  → Generate payout report (run /engineering-pulse monthly --payout)
28th  → Share bounty table with contributors
30th  → 48-hour dispute window closes
31st  → Manager confirms final amounts, payout processed

If the month has fewer than 31 days, shift accordingly (e.g., Feb: 26th → 28th).

During the 48-hour review period:

Share bounty table with contributors — each person sees their own row plus the flag explanations
Dispute window — contributors can provide context for any flagged PR (e.g., "this churn-suspect was the migration cleanup you assigned me")
Manager resolves disputes — one-line justification logged in the report for each override
Final payout — after the review period closes, the manager confirms the net amounts

Late PRs (merged after the 28th)

PRs merged between the 28th and end of month are included in the next month's payout report. The cutoff is the --until date in the payout report. This avoids re-generating the report after disputes are resolved.

Mid-month draft cadence (recommended)

Run a draft report weekly or bi-weekly to catch issues early:

Week 2 draft: Are contributors on track? Anyone with zero PRs who might be blocked?
Week 3 draft: Flag any gaming patterns early so the end-of-month payout report is clean

Drafts use the same classification logic but are labeled clearly as non-binding.

This step is process, not code — the payout report should include the review_period_ends and payout_date in the frontmatter and a note at the bottom: "Bounty estimates are preliminary until the review period closes on {review_period_ends}. Final payout on {payout_date}."

Step 8: Pre-Invoice Mode (`--pre-invoice`)

When the user passes --pre-invoice (or asks for "pre-invoices" / "bounty statements"), generate one engineer-facing markdown statement per active engineer in addition to the team payout report. These statements are what the engineer uses to issue an invoice; they must be self-contained, accurate, and free of internal-only signals (no flags, no comparisons to other contributors, no management insights).

Inputs

engineers.yaml (next to this SKILL.md) — registry of active engineers with display name, reference initials, and currency. Engineers absent from this file are still counted in the team payout report but no statement is generated for them.
reports/payouts/balances.json (in the working repo) — append-only ledger of explicit advance agreements. Most months it's empty. Each entry has lifecycle: pending → applied (one or more periods) → settled. Each pending entry can include an apply_when condition (currently supports gross >= NNNN, gross > NNNN, etc.) that gates auto-application — useful when an advance shouldn't be drawn down until the engineer's monthly gross bounty crosses a threshold (so we don't compound assignment shortfalls). When the condition is met, the skill proposes applying the advance; when it isn't met, the engineer's statement renders a "carried forward" block explaining the rollover. The skill never auto-creates entries — manual edits welcome.
pre-invoice-template.md (next to this SKILL.md) — markdown template with placeholders for the rendering step.

Output

One statement per active engineer at reports/payouts/<period>/<period>_<github_login>.md. The period subfolder groups all statements for a given month or half-month together.

Monthly payout runs: period = YYYY-MM → reports/payouts/2026-04/2026-04_DBusuru.md
Half-month runs: period = YYYY-MM-DD-to-DD → reports/payouts/2026-03-16-to-30/2026-03-16-to-30_DBusuru.md

Create the subfolder if it doesn't exist. Filename uses the github login (deterministic, unambiguous) — not the display name.

Rendering rules

Work table: one row per feature PR (exclude CI noise and revert-pairs). Columns: ticket label (extract from PR title — e.g., "[#414] …" or "ticket 5.3"), repo name, PR number, tier, amount. PRs flagged as duplicate-suspect or as setup-noise (e.g. titles like "Author ( the branch)") have their amounts struck through (~~500~~) and footnoted; they are NOT included in the gross.
Tier summary: one row per tier present, with PR count, rate, subtotal. Counts only the kept (non-struck) PRs.
Gross bounty: sum of subtotals.
Advance block: present only if balances.json has an advance entry for this engineer that is either (a) pending with an apply_when condition the current gross satisfies → render an "Applied This Month" block, OR (b) pending with the condition not yet satisfied → render a "Carried Forward" block, OR (c) settled with applied_period == current period → render a historical "Applied This Month" block. If no entry matches, omit the block entirely. Use the friendly month name in headings ("March Advance — Carried Forward", not "2026-03 Advance — Carried Forward").
Volume note: present only when the manager has supplied a per-engineer note for the period. Don't auto-generate volume notes from velocity data — the manager decides when context is owed.
Footnotes: if any rows are struck through, append a ## Notes for Review section explaining each. Tone: factual, second-person, invite the engineer to flag if our judgment is wrong.
Net total: gross - applied_advance. This is the amount the engineer invoices.
Reference code: GC-ENG-<period>-<reference_initials>. For half-month periods append A or B (GC-ENG-2026-03B-DB).

Tone

These statements are sent to the engineer. Write everything in plain second-person prose as if you're the manager talking to the contractor:

✅ "In March we paid you KES 5,000 against work that came in at KES 2,500..."
❌ "March overpayment from bounty rubric calibration. Originally agreed to draw down against April work..."

Avoid third-person references to the engineer ("David's gross", "Daniella's PRs"), accounting jargon ("recover", "reconciliation entry"), and judgmental language ("penalize"). When the cause of a discrepancy is on the platform side (light assignment, rubric calibration), name it explicitly and take responsibility — engineers notice when statements quietly skip the why.

The rationale field in balances.json is rendered verbatim into the engineer-facing block, so it must already be in this voice. Do not write internal-finance language there.

Confirmation gate before writing balances.json

After rendering the statements but before writing the updated balances.json:

Print a diff summary to the console: which advances would transition pending → applied or applied → settled, with engineer names and amounts.
Wait for explicit user confirmation (y / yes).
Only on confirmation, write the updated balances.json.

This kills the double-count risk if the skill is re-run for the same period — running again without confirmation produces the same statement files but the ledger is unchanged. Idempotency is keyed on (advance.id, applied_period).

Ops & Review Contribution Detection

In addition to bounty (merged PRs), engineers earn for skill-assisted ops work that lives in Fizzy comments — pr-review runs, qa-handoff guides, ticket-review panel runs, and manual QA sessions. These are real contributions that don't show up in gh pr list.

Inputs:

ops-rates.yaml (next to this SKILL.md) — defines categories, rates (KES), keyword detectors, minimum comment length, and the list of Fizzy boards + card-number range to scan.
fizzy_user_id field on each engineer in engineers.yaml — required for attribution. Discoverable from any card's /comments.json endpoint by inspecting creator.id.

Algorithm:

For each card number in ops-rates.yaml > card_scan_range, fetch /comments.json (parallelize via thread pool, ~25 workers, ~10 seconds for 800 cards). Also fetch the card metadata itself (/cards/{n}.json) so card creators can be matched for the prod-triage category.

The comments endpoint paginates at 15 comments/page via a Link: <…?page=2>; rel="next" response header. You MUST follow the Link rel="next" header to exhaustion per card, or you silently drop every comment past the 15th on busy cards — exactly the high-traffic infra/QA threads you most want to see (e.g. May card #179 had 47 comments; reading page 1 only saw 15). This under-counts everyone. The get() helper must return both the parsed body AND resp.headers.get('Link'). Reference implementation (verified working 2026-05-30):
```
def scan(n):
    out = []; url = f'https://app.fizzy.do/{ACCT}/cards/{n}/comments.json'; pages = 0
    while url and pages < 12:                      # 12-page safety cap
        data, link = get(url)                      # get() must also return resp.headers.get('Link')
        if not isinstance(data, list): break
        out.extend(data); pages += 1
        m = re.search(r'<([^>]+)>;\s*rel="next"', link or '')
        url = m.group(1) if m else None
    return n, out
```
Filter to: authored by an active engineer (via fizzy_user_id map) within the analysis window AND on/after the engineer's bounty_start_date if set. (See "Per-engineer bounty start date" below.)
Classify each surface independently:
- Comment-based categories (ticket-review, pr-review, qa-handoff, manual-qa): walk in priority order. A comment matches if it (a) meets min_length, (b) hits any of detect_any keywords, AND (c) hits all of detect_all clauses (each clause requires any of its keywords). Unmatched comments longer than track_other_min_length surface as "uncategorized" so the manager can refine the detectors.
- Card-creation categories (prod-triage): when a category specifies surface: card_creation, scan card metadata instead of comments. Match if the card was created by the engineer's fizzy_user_id, on a board in the category's boards list, with a title hitting any of title_detect_any. Each matching card counts once at rate_kes regardless of how the engineer later updates it.
- QA-verdict surface (qa-verdict, surface: qa_verdict): a CAPACITY count (tickets tested), NOT a paid category. Detect a QA verdict by the structural signal first — a card moved into or out of any column in qa_column_ids is a QA action regardless of comment wording — then by the format-tolerant verdict_regex (case-insensitive) for comment-only sign-offs/blocks. Do NOT rely on the narrow manual-qa keywords for qa-role engineers: they miss ~97% of real QA verdicts (TICKET #X — QA REVIEW SIGN-OFF / QA BLOCK / UI TESTING SIGN-OFF). Dedup per distinct card; optionally split block/fail vs sign-off/pass via block_regex / signoff_regex. Surfaces in "Capacity & Invisible Work", not in the ops payable total.
Dedup ops matches per (engineer, card, category) — we do not pay for re-reviewing/re-testing the same card (Tobi, 2026-05-30). Within a single card, collapse repeat matches of the same category by the same engineer to ONE. Distinct-sub-branch exception: a single Fizzy card carrying multiple distinct sub-branch PRs (e.g. #672 = 672a–e) counts each distinct branch — detect distinct branch/PR refs in the matched comments and credit one per distinct ref; fall back to per-card (one) if no distinct refs are found. 4b. Self-QA / self-review does NOT double-pay (Tobi, 2026-07-01). An ops match (manual-QA, pr-review, ticket-review, qa-handoff) on a Fizzy card the same engineer also authored code for in the window is part of shipping that ticket — already covered by the code bounty + warranty — and is excluded from paid ops. Build authored_tickets[engineer] = the set of card numbers each engineer wrote code for (extract #NNNN / (NNNN) refs from their PR titles + git-log commit subjects, all records incl. excluded). When an ops comment by engineer E lands on card N, credit it only if N ∉ authored_tickets[E]. QA/review of another engineer's ticket still pays in full — this is why a dedicated QA role (Elvis) is credited for the bulk of their throughput while a code engineer QA-ing their own feature is not. Report the excluded self-QA total per engineer for transparency (don't silently drop it). NOTE: this is a paid-ops rule only — the qa-verdict capacity surface (§5g-bis) still counts self-verdicts, since capacity is a throughput signal, not a payout.
Sum per-engineer per-category: count × rate_kes = subtotal. Net ops = sum of all category subtotals.

Retainer awareness (see engineers.yaml > employment):
- employment: bounty (or absent) → ops + bounty figure is payable; behaves as today.
- employment: retainer, retainer_role: engineering → compute bounty + ops as shadow-bounty (not paid — retainer) (Fix 5). EXCLUDE it from team total payable; show it separately, labeled.
- employment: retainer, retainer_role: qa → suppress the PR/shadow-bounty entirely. Measure on QA throughput (manual-QA sessions + tickets tested via the qa-verdict surface) in "Capacity & Invisible Work". Near-zero QA throughput in the window is a flag to surface, not a number to compute.

Per-engineer bounty start date. When an engineer's bounty_start_date is set in engineers.yaml, all PRs / comments / card creations attributed to them must satisfy event_date >= bounty_start_date. Pre-agreement work is not bounty-eligible — even if it shipped during the analysis window. Apply the filter at the source-merging step (PR mergedAt, comment created_at, card created_at), not as a downstream filter, so subtotals are accurate from the start. If the field is missing or null, no filter is applied.

Rate effective dates. When rate_effective_from is set on a category, the rate applies only to events on or after that date. For events before the effective date, fall back to the previous rate (recorded in the category comment). The skill should never silently re-rate historical periods; if the manager runs --pre-invoice for an old period after a rate change, the older rate should still produce the original numbers.

Render in statement:

New section "Ops & Review Contributions" (after "Bounty Summary") with one row per category present.
Net payable becomes bounty_gross + ops_total - applied_advance.
If the engineer has bounty AND ops, the statement also includes a "Total" block summing the two before the advance/invoice section so the engineer can read the math at a glance.

Tone in the section: "These are skill-assisted reviews, QA testing guides, and manual QA sessions you posted to Fizzy this month — work that doesn't show up as merged PRs." Acknowledges the contribution without overselling it (the AI did most of the heavy lifting; we're paying for the human in the loop).

Calibration philosophy: rates are deliberately low because most of these tasks are AI-assisted — the engineer's value is invoking the skill, sanity-checking, and adding context. Manual QA is the exception (real testing-the-app time) and gets a higher rate. If a category becomes high-volume for a single engineer (say 30+ runs/month consistently), that's a signal to formalize the role (flat retainer for QA, etc.) rather than scaling the per-task rate up.

False positives & manager review: the detectors are heuristic and produce some misclassification. Daniella's April scan, for example, flagged 16 "uncategorized" long comments (file-summaries written for context that aren't a defined category). The team payout report surfaces these so the manager can decide whether to add a new category, manually credit, or ignore. The skill never silently inflates — what it shows is what was matched.

Founder, QA, and unregistered contributors

Founder: never gets a pre-invoice statement (sweat equity).
QA (Elvis): never gets a PR-based statement. As a retainer_role: qa engineer he is measured on QA throughput (manual-QA + qa-verdict tickets tested) in Capacity & Invisible Work, not on PRs or shadow-bounty.
Retainer engineers (employment: retainer): never get a payable pre-invoice statement — the retainer does not stack with bounty. Their bounty + ops is computed as internal-only shadow-bounty (a floor, not a ceiling) and excluded from team total payable. The only thing ever shared with a retained engineer is the value note, never the shadow-bounty number.
Engineers with PRs but no engineers.yaml entry: team payout report counts their bounty; no statement file is written. The skill prints a one-line warning suggesting the user add them to engineers.yaml if they should be invoiced.

Machine-readable payout export (`--payout-json`)

When the user passes --payout-json (in addition to --pre-invoice), also emit a single machine-readable file at reports/payouts/<period>/payout.json — the same numbers as the markdown statements, in a form a downstream tool can consume without parsing prose. This is what feeds the vetted-invoices static site (its local publish.py reads this file and writes the per-engineer invoice pages).

Keep this file consumer-agnostic. It is keyed by GitHub login and knows nothing about invoice tokens, Netlify, or any specific site — that coupling lives entirely in the consumer. Do not add token/URL fields here.

Shape: a JSON array, one object per engineer who got a statement (retainer engineers included — they invoice their flat retainer even though they get no bounty statement). Fields:

[
  {
    "github": "daniella-mu",              // engineers.yaml primary key (join key downstream)
    "display_name": "Daniella Mutai",
    "employment": "bounty",               // "bounty" | "retainer"
    "reference_code": "GC-ENG-2026-06-DM",// GC-ENG-… for bounty, GC-RET-… for retainer
    "period_label": "June 2026 (1–30 June)",
    "generated": "2026-06",               // the period key
    "code_total": 30000,                  // bounty gross (net of struck rows)
    "ops_total": 5385,
    "net_total": 35385,                   // code_total + ops_total − applied_advance; the amount invoiced
    "work":  [ {"title": "...", "repo": "nts", "tier": "L", "amt": 2000} ],
    "tiers": [ {"tier": "S", "count": 40, "rate": 500, "subtotal": 20000} ],
    "ops":   [ {"label": "PR Review (skill-assisted)", "count": 39, "rate": 40, "subtotal": 1560} ]
  },
  {
    "github": "jush34",
    "display_name": "Theophilus Juma",
    "employment": "retainer",
    "reference_code": "GC-RET-2026-06-TJ",
    "period_label": "June 2026 (1–30 June)",
    "generated": "2026-06",
    "retainer_kes_month": 30000           // retainer people carry this instead of the bounty fields
  }
]

Rules that keep it faithful to the statements:

net_total already reflects any applied advance (same figure the engineer is told to invoice). work/tiers exclude struck (duplicate-suspect / setup-noise) rows, matching the statement.
Retainer engineers: emit employment: "retainer" + retainer_kes_month, and use the GC-RET-… reference code. Do not emit their shadow-bounty numbers here — the flat retainer is what they invoice.
Amounts are integers (KES). No currency symbols, no thousands separators.

Bounty Rate Reference

These rates are fixed in KES (Kenyan Shillings). They are intentionally conservative — the team is bootstrapped and operating in the East African market.

Tier	Rate (KES)	~USD @ 130	Scope
S	500	~$3.85	Single, well-defined output with a clear finish line (bug fix, copy edit, UI tweak)
M	1,000	~$7.70	Complete deliverable with multiple steps or components (new feature, process doc)
L	2,000	~$15.40	Substantial end-to-end deliverable spanning multiple sessions (full feature, campaign, detailed report)
XL	3,500	~$26.90	High-judgment deliverable requiring significant planning, iteration, or cross-functional context (system architecture, go-to-market strategy, full product spec)

Role-specific notes

QA (Elvis/Much1r1): QA work is measured by defect escape rate and test coverage, not PR volume. Elvis is excluded from the PR-based bounty table and tracked separately. If QA contributors submit code PRs, those are bounty-eligible like anyone else's.
New contributors (first 30 days): Contributors in their first 30 days of activity are marked with a ramping-up tag. Their tier distribution is shown for context but the manager should expect S-heavy output during onboarding — this is normal, not underperformance.
Founder: Tracked in a separate section for workload visibility. Not bounty-eligible (sweat equity).

Implementation Notes

Run all gh pr list commands in parallel (one per repo) for speed; for source: git-log repos substitute the git log --numstat pull from Step 2b (also parallelizable)
Fetch gh pr view data (files, reviews) only for PRs above S-tier threshold to avoid API rate limits
Use Python for data processing — it handles JSON, dates, and table formatting well
The analysis script is self-contained in a Python block. Allowed deps: stdlib + pyyaml (for parsing repos.yaml, engineers.yaml, ops-rates.yaml). Install with pip3 install --quiet pyyaml if missing.
Fizzy auth: the --pre-invoice mode hits the Fizzy API for ops detection. Source the token from .env.local before running: set -a && source <repo>/.env.local && set +a — exposes FIZZY_API_TOKEN for the Python script to read via os.environ. See .claude/rules/env-local-credentials.md.
Fizzy API patterns: use urllib.request (stdlib) with Authorization: Bearer ${FIZZY_API_TOKEN} and User-Agent: VettedAI/1.0. Always append .json to action endpoints. See .claude/rules/fizzy-api-patterns.md. Parallelize card-fetches via ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=25) — ~10 seconds for 800-card scan.
Fizzy comments paginate at 15/page via Link: rel=next — follow to exhaustion or you silently undercount busy cards. The get() helper must surface resp.headers.get('Link') so the scan loop can chase rel="next" (reference loop in the Ops algorithm, step 1).
Fizzy comment body is an object {plain_text, html}, NOT a bare string. Read body['plain_text'] (fall back to stripping body['html']); treating body as a string throws TypeError. Same for QA-verdict / resolved-by-comment detection.
Card scan range in ops-rates.yaml > card_scan_range should be tuned periodically as Fizzy card numbers grow. Underestimating misses recent ops; overestimating just costs a few extra seconds.
If lines/files counts look anomalous (e.g., >50K lines in a single PR), flag it as likely containing generated/vendor files
Always note the CI noise percentage in the final summary so managers see the true signal
Deflation bias: default to lower tier. The goal is accuracy, not punishment
Flags are advisory only: show them prominently so the manager can decide during the review period. Never silently downgrade — transparency builds trust
Revert-pairs are the one automatic deduction — merged-then-reverted PRs have zero net value, no judgment needed
When showing bounty estimates, show gross and the revert deduction so the delta is clear

Bounty + Ops Reference

System	Source of truth	What it counts
Bounty (PRs)	`gh pr list` across `repos.yaml` (or `git log --numstat` for `source: git-log` repos)	Merged PRs / direct-push commits into integration branches, tiered S/M/L/XL by lower of files/lines
Ops contributions	Fizzy comments + card creations across `ops-rates.yaml > boards`	pr-review, qa-handoff, ticket-review, manual-qa (comments) + prod-triage (card creations). Deduped per `(engineer, card, category)` — no re-reviews; distinct-sub-branch exception
Capacity & Invisible Work (signal, not paid)	Fizzy comments + `gh pr list --state open`	PRs reviewed, tickets resolved-by-comment, QA verdicts (tickets tested), open/in-flight PRs + lines
Employment / payability	`engineers.yaml` `employment`	`bounty` → payable; `retainer` → shadow-bounty (not paid, excluded from team total); `retainer_role: qa` → suppress shadow-bounty, measure on QA throughput
Advances	`reports/payouts/balances.json`	Explicit advance agreements, lifecycle pending → applied → settled
Per-engineer eligibility	`engineers.yaml` `bounty_start_date`	Filter applied to PRs / comments / card creations: `event_date >= bounty_start_date`

name	engineering-pulse
description	Cross-repo engineering productivity analysis with bounty estimation. Use when the user wants contributor stats, PR velocity, workload distribution, team performance snapshots, or bounty payout projections.
version	3.5.0
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"VettedAI","category":"engineering-management","tags":["productivity","performance-review","team-health","velocity","delegation","bounty"],"created":"2026-03-11T00:00:00.000Z","updated":"2026-06-28T00:00:00.000Z"}
argument-hint	[weekly\|monthly\|quarterly] [--since YYYY-MM-DD] [--until YYYY-MM-DD] [--pre-invoice] [--payout-json] [--draft\|--payout]

Engineering Pulse — Contributor Productivity & Bounty Analysis

Philosophy: Deflation bias. This is an AI-assisted workflow — agents write most of the code, engineers supervise and validate. We pay for judgment and output, not volume. When in doubt, the lower tier wins.

Context budget — the heavy data stays in the script, never the conversation

Concretely:

Do not run gh pr list … / gh pr view … / Fizzy fetches as standalone Bash calls whose JSON streams back into the conversation. Let the script do the fetching in-process and emit only tables.
If you must debug a raw pull interactively, redirect to a file (gh pr list … > /tmp/ep_prs.json) and inspect with jq + a few rows — never cat the whole array into the reply (same discipline as the supabase-data-access rule).
The gh pr view per-PR fan-out (Step 2) and the 800-card comment scan (Step 8 ops detection) are the two biggest sources — both are already designed to run inside the script's ThreadPoolExecutor; keep them there.
Verify with submodules/skill-master/scripts/measure-skill-run.ts — parent peak context should stay flat run-to-run regardless of how many repos/cards are scanned, because the volume lives in the script, not the conversation. A parent peak that grows with batch size means raw data is leaking into context.

When to Use

Weekly: quick velocity check — who shipped, who's blocked?
Monthly: workload balance + bounty payout preview
Quarterly: performance review input — PR volume, scope, growth trajectory
Ad-hoc: "who could take on more?" or "who needs clearer task assignments?"
Bounty reconciliation: "what does each dev earn this period?"
Explicitly via /engineering-pulse

Repos to Analyze

# repos.yaml
repos:
  - name: audition
    path: /Users/USER/code/repos/vettedai-audition-supabase-version
    integration_branches: [main, lovable-staging]
  - name: nts
    path: /Users/USER/code/repos/nts-event-platform-supabase
    integration_branches: [main, staging]
  # ... append more here

If a repo path doesn't exist on disk or gh returns auth errors for it, log a warning and continue with the remaining repos — never block the whole report on one missing repo.

Repo-allowlist drift check (run every report — the sustainable scaling mechanism)

for org in Generous-Circle congratsai Vetted-AI; do
  gh repo list "$org" --limit 100 --json nameWithOwner,pushedAt \
    --jq ".[] | select(.pushedAt >= \"$WINDOW_START\") | .nameWithOwner"
done   # diff against repos.yaml; anything new → ASK, never auto-add

No-silent-zero rule (coverage honesty)

Step 1: Determine Time Window

Parse the user's argument to set the analysis window:

Argument	`--since`	`--until`
`weekly`	7 days ago	today
`monthly`	30 days ago	today
`quarterly`	90 days ago	today
`--since 2026-01-01`	2026-01-01	today
`--since 2026-01-01 --until 2026-02-28`	2026-01-01	2026-02-28
(no argument)	all time	today

Step 2: Pull Merged PR Data

For each repo, run via gh CLI:

gh pr list --state merged --limit 500 \
  --json number,title,author,createdAt,mergedAt,additions,deletions,changedFiles,labels

Additional data for flagging (PRs above S-tier): For PRs with changedFiles > 3 OR (additions+deletions) > 100, also fetch:

gh pr view {number} --json files,reviews,commits

This enables revert detection, file-path analysis, and review tracking.

If a repo returns a 502 error (GitHub GraphQL overload), retry once without the body field and with --limit 200. If it still fails, note it and proceed with available data.

Filter by time window: After fetching, filter PRs where mergedAt falls within the --since / --until range.

Exclude bots: Filter out authors where is_bot: true or login matches: dependabot, renovate, github-actions, lovable-dev.

Exclude founder: tobilafinhangit is tracked in a separate "Founder Activity" section — not included in the bounty table. Founder output is sweat equity, not bounty-eligible.

Step 2b: `source: git-log` repos (no GitHub PRs)

# One record per commit: header line then a numstat block per commit
git -C <repo.path> log <integration_branch> --no-merges --since=<since> --until=<until> \
  --numstat --date=iso-strict --format='__COMMIT__%H|%an|%ae|%cI|%s'

Map each commit to a PR-equivalent for the same tiering/bounty pipeline as Step 3+:

author → match the commit author (%an / %ae) against engineers.yaml (its github login, or a git_name/git_email if present). Joy's commits are authored JoyyCLangat, which equals her github key.
changedFiles → number of numstat rows for the commit (after the deductions in Step 3).
additions / deletions → summed numstat columns (binary files show -; treat as 0 lines, still 1 file).
mergedAt → committer date %cI (used for the time-window filter, same as PR mergedAt).
title / number → subject %s (the trailing (#NNNN) is a Fizzy card, not a GitHub PR — label it as such in tables, don't link it as a PR).

Step 3: Classify PR Size Tiers

Each PR gets a tier based on scope signals:

Tier	Files Changed	Lines (Add+Del)	Rate (KES)	Interpretation
S (Small)	1–3	< 300	500	Bug fix, config tweak, copy change
M (Medium)	4–10	300–800	1,000	Feature slice, focused refactor
L (Large)	11–25	800–2,500	2,000	Full feature, multi-file refactor
XL (Extra Large)	25+	2,500+	3,500	Major feature, migration, restructure

Classification rule: LOWER tier wins

Default: A PR is classified by the lower tier when dimensions disagree. This prevents inflation from trivial multi-file touches or verbose code.

When dimensions disagree by 2+ tiers (e.g., files=L but lines=S), flag the PR as inflate-suspect.

Examples:

2 files + 200 lines → files=S, lines=M → S (default deflation)
15 files + 80 lines → files=L, lines=S → S + inflate-suspect flag
12 files + 800 lines → both L → L

Deductions: what does NOT count

Before classification, subtract from the line count:

Generated/vendor files: package-lock.json, yarn.lock, deno.lock, *.generated.*, *.min.js, src/integrations/supabase/types.ts
Lockfile-only PRs: If the only changed file is a lockfile, classify as noise (not S)
Migrations (.sql files) ARE counted — they represent real schema work

Note: The copy-paste deduction (>60% identical lines) is only applied when full diffs are available. If gh pr diff was not fetched for a PR, skip this check and note it in the report.

Advisory flags

Most flags are informational only — the manager reviews during the 48-hour review period (Step 7). Exception: split-suspect is a soft auto-deduction (see below).

split-suspect: 3+ S-tier PRs from the same author merged within 24 hours with related titles (shared prefix or keywords) — likely one deliverable split into micro-PRs. Soft auto-deduction: collapse the group into a single S payout (500 KES total instead of N × 500). Show in the report as split-suspect: merged [N] PRs → 1 × S. The manager can override during the review period with a one-line justification — but the default is collapsed.
inflate-suspect: Files/lines disagree by 2+ tiers (e.g., 20 files but 50 lines)
churn-suspect: PR where deletions > 80% of additions AND net codebase change ≈ 0 (moved/renamed code). A PR that net deletes code (additions - deletions is significantly negative) is cleanup — not flagged, this is valuable work
generated-heavy: >50% of lines are in files matching generated/vendor patterns
revert-pair: PR title starts with "Revert" or body contains "reverts #NNN". Both the original PR and the revert are flagged. Net value = zero — exclude both from bounty
duplicate-suspect: >80% of commits overlap with a previously closed (not merged) PR from the same author

Step 4: Detect "Verify Deployment" / CI Noise

Count PRs with titles matching patterns like:

Verify deploy*
Merge branch* (auto-merge PRs)
Exact duplicate titles from the same author within 5 minutes

Report these separately as CI/deploy noise so they don't inflate feature velocity.

Step 5: Generate the Report

Produce these sections as clean markdown tables:

5a. Per-Author Summary (excludes founder)

5b. Founder Activity (separate section)

5c. PR Size Distribution

| Author | S | M | L | XL | Flagged | One row per author. Only count feature PRs (exclude CI noise). "Flagged" = count of PRs with advisory flags.

5d. Velocity

5e. Repo Breakdown

5f. Bounty Estimate

| Author | S × 500 | M × 1,000 | L × 2,000 | XL × 3,500 | Gross (KES) | Revert Deductions | Net (KES) |

Gross = sum of (tier count × tier rate) for all feature PRs.

Automatic Deductions:

revert-pair — both the original and the revert are excluded (zero net value)
split-suspect — collapsed to 1 × S payout. Show the saving: e.g., "split-suspect: 3 PRs → 1 × S (saved 1,000 KES)"

All other flags are advisory — the manager decides during review.

Net = Gross minus revert-pair deductions.

Retainer / shadow-bounty split (Fix 3 + Fix 5). Before totaling:

For each employment: retainer engineer, the bounty + ops Net renders as Shadow-bounty (not paid — retainer): X KES with the footnote: "Floor, not ceiling. Infra/security/investigation work is under-measured by line/task proxies — see the Capacity & Invisible Work section and value note." This is internal-only — never include it in an engineer-facing statement.
retainer_role: qa engineers: still surface their code output as shadow-bounty in the Retainer ROI table (§5f-ter) — a QA person building automation tooling (Elvis in vetted-automation) is real output worth tracking (Tobi, 2026-07-01, superseding the earlier "suppress entirely"). But their shadow figure understates a QA role — always show it alongside their QA throughput (manual-QA sessions + tickets tested, §5g-bis), never as their standalone value.
Team total payable EXCLUDES all shadow-bounty. Compute "Team total payable" = sum of Net for employment: bounty engineers only. Show the shadow-bounty total separately as a clearly-labeled non-payable line, e.g. Shadow-bounty (retained engineers, not paid): Y KES.

5f-ter. Retainer Output — ROI signal (standard monthly section)

Engineer	Role	Code output (KES)	Ops/QA (KES)	Shadow total	vs retainer cost

Code output = collapsed shadow-bounty from merged PRs / git-log commits (same tiering + collapse as bounty).
Ops/QA = ops-category total (pr-review, manual-QA, etc.) from the Fizzy scan.
Shadow total = Code + Ops/QA.
vs retainer cost = round(100 × shadow_total / retainer_kes_month) (default 30,000). This is the ROI ratio.
Sort by shadow total desc. Add the standing caveat verbatim: "Floor, not ceiling — infra/security/QA work is under-read by line/task proxies. A low % (e.g. an infra/security engineer at 25%) is almost always under-measurement, not low output. Read alongside §5g-bis."
For retainer_role: qa, append a one-line callout with their QA throughput (manual-QA session count + tickets tested) so the % is never read as their value.

5g. Reviews Given

5g-bis. Capacity & Invisible Work (signal, not payment)

Computation:

PRs reviewed — count of distinct cards where the engineer authored a matched pr-review comment. Already detected; just surface the deduped-per-card count (Fix 5 dedup). Cheap.
Tickets resolved-by-comment — count of cards the engineer closed or where their comment drove closure. Detection: their authored comment matches closing as|closed as|resolved —|superseded by|obsolete|no action needed|stale near the start, OR they are the actor on the card's closure event. This is a count, not a paid category — it captures investigation/triage (Theo's largest contribution type) without parsing prose.
QA verdicts (tickets tested) — from the qa-verdict surface (structural column-move into/out of a QA column + format-tolerant regex). Distinct cards. For qa-role retainers this is the primary capacity measure. (May reality: Elvis ≈ 227 verdicts across 190 distinct cards — the old manual-qa keywords saw 7.)
Open / in-flight PRs (+ lines) — gh pr list --state open --author <login> per repo, summing additions+deletions. Surfaces work trapped in review/CI (Kenn's ~9k unmerged lines would show here). Counts and lines only — do not tier or pay.

5h. Summary Table

< 1 PR/month — less than 1 feature PR per month (averaged over window)
multi-repo — contributes to 2+ repos
XL-heavy — more than 50% of PRs are XL tier
noise-heavy — more than 30% of PRs are CI/deploy noise
Advisory flags from Step 3 (split-suspect, inflate-suspect, etc.)

5i. Management Insights

After the tables, add a Management Insights section with actionable observations:

Workload balance — Is one person carrying the team? Are others underutilized?
Delegation opportunities — Based on repo breakdown, who could take on more in an underserved repo?
PR hygiene — Anyone consistently shipping XL PRs that should be broken down? Anyone with a high noise ratio?
Growth signals — Is anyone's velocity increasing or decreasing compared to prior periods? (Only if prior data available)
Risk flags — Single points of failure (one person owns an entire repo), idle contributors, or bus factor concerns.
Bounty ROI — For each contributor, is the estimated payout proportional to the value delivered? Flag anyone where the bounty seems disproportionate to output quality.
Blind spots — This report measures merged code output only. Investigation, debugging, architecture review, incident response, code review, and mentoring are NOT captured. The manager should adjust payouts for contributors whose primary value is diagnostic or architectural.
Conversion watch (auto-flag). Auto-flag any bounty engineer (employment: bounty) whose trailing figure (bounty + ops Net, ideally over 2–3 months) ≥ ~70% of a reference retainer (default 30k, i.e. ≥ ~21k) as a conversion candidate. Surface the §4 three-gate checklist for the manager: (1) shadow-bounty ≥ ~70–80% of retainer cost over a trailing 2–3 months, (2) capacity headroom looks real (velocity, multi-repo spread, responsiveness), (3) quality is clean (low revert rate, low QA-fail rate, few flags). Below the bar, keep them on bounty — it's cheaper, flexible, self-limiting. (May: Daniella ≈ 29.6k clears the gate today; next is DBusuru ~16k, not close.)
Per-retained-engineer value note. For each employment: retainer engineer, render a templated 1–2 line free-text field (value_note, filled monthly by the manager) — e.g. "Oussama — webhook hardening + memory-exhaustion fix; high-leverage security, low line-count by nature." This is the only judgement of an infra/security engineer's value that should carry weight; the shadow-bounty is a floor, never a ceiling (strategy §2, §5). Leave a blank placeholder line if the manager hasn't supplied one this period.
Coverage / "not measured" honesty. Explicitly list every surface or person we did NOT scan this run (missing fizzy_user_id, repos outside the allowlist, dormant boards). Print "not measured" for each — never let an un-scanned person read as a zero. When a number looks shockingly low, suspect coverage before performance.

Step 6: Save the Report

Reports are saved based on their type — draft (mid-month check-ins) or payout (end-of-month final).

Report types

Type	When	File name	Purpose
Draft	Any weekly/ad-hoc run during the month	`reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-DD-draft.md`	Velocity check, early flags, no payout implications
Payout	End of calendar month (run on the 28th)	`reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-payout.md`	The official bounty report for that month's cycle

Draft reports

reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-DD-draft.md

Frontmatter includes type: draft. The bounty table header reads: "DRAFT — not for payout. Mid-month check-in only."

Draft reports do NOT trigger the review period. They're for the manager's eyes to course-correct (e.g., "Kariuki11 has zero PRs this month — check if he's blocked").

Payout reports

reports/engineering-pulse/YYYY-MM-payout.md

Frontmatter includes type: payout. This is the single source of truth for that month's bounties.

Window: Always 1st of the month → last day of the month (calendar month). The --since/--until are auto-set:

--since = first day of current month (e.g., 2026-03-01)
--until = today (or last day of month if running on the 28th+)

Create the directory if it doesn't exist. Include a YAML frontmatter header:

---
report: engineering-pulse
type: payout
generated: 2026-03-28
window: 2026-03-01 to 2026-03-28
repos: [audition, congrats, backend]
total_prs: 142
contributors: 6
bounty_rates_kes: { S: 500, M: 1000, L: 2000, XL: 3500 }
classification: deflation-bias
review_period_ends: 2026-03-30
payout_date: 2026-03-31
---

Step 7: Monthly Payout Cycle

Payouts happen at the end of each calendar month. The timeline:

28th  → Generate payout report (run /engineering-pulse monthly --payout)
28th  → Share bounty table with contributors
30th  → 48-hour dispute window closes
31st  → Manager confirms final amounts, payout processed

If the month has fewer than 31 days, shift accordingly (e.g., Feb: 26th → 28th).

During the 48-hour review period:

Share bounty table with contributors — each person sees their own row plus the flag explanations
Dispute window — contributors can provide context for any flagged PR (e.g., "this churn-suspect was the migration cleanup you assigned me")
Manager resolves disputes — one-line justification logged in the report for each override
Final payout — after the review period closes, the manager confirms the net amounts

Late PRs (merged after the 28th)

Mid-month draft cadence (recommended)

Run a draft report weekly or bi-weekly to catch issues early:

Week 2 draft: Are contributors on track? Anyone with zero PRs who might be blocked?
Week 3 draft: Flag any gaming patterns early so the end-of-month payout report is clean

Drafts use the same classification logic but are labeled clearly as non-binding.

Step 8: Pre-Invoice Mode (`--pre-invoice`)

Inputs

engineers.yaml (next to this SKILL.md) — registry of active engineers with display name, reference initials, and currency. Engineers absent from this file are still counted in the team payout report but no statement is generated for them.
reports/payouts/balances.json (in the working repo) — append-only ledger of explicit advance agreements. Most months it's empty. Each entry has lifecycle: pending → applied (one or more periods) → settled. Each pending entry can include an apply_when condition (currently supports gross >= NNNN, gross > NNNN, etc.) that gates auto-application — useful when an advance shouldn't be drawn down until the engineer's monthly gross bounty crosses a threshold (so we don't compound assignment shortfalls). When the condition is met, the skill proposes applying the advance; when it isn't met, the engineer's statement renders a "carried forward" block explaining the rollover. The skill never auto-creates entries — manual edits welcome.
pre-invoice-template.md (next to this SKILL.md) — markdown template with placeholders for the rendering step.

Output

One statement per active engineer at reports/payouts/<period>/<period>_<github_login>.md. The period subfolder groups all statements for a given month or half-month together.

Monthly payout runs: period = YYYY-MM → reports/payouts/2026-04/2026-04_DBusuru.md
Half-month runs: period = YYYY-MM-DD-to-DD → reports/payouts/2026-03-16-to-30/2026-03-16-to-30_DBusuru.md

Create the subfolder if it doesn't exist. Filename uses the github login (deterministic, unambiguous) — not the display name.

Rendering rules

Work table: one row per feature PR (exclude CI noise and revert-pairs). Columns: ticket label (extract from PR title — e.g., "[#414] …" or "ticket 5.3"), repo name, PR number, tier, amount. PRs flagged as duplicate-suspect or as setup-noise (e.g. titles like "Author ( the branch)") have their amounts struck through (~~500~~) and footnoted; they are NOT included in the gross.
Tier summary: one row per tier present, with PR count, rate, subtotal. Counts only the kept (non-struck) PRs.
Gross bounty: sum of subtotals.
Advance block: present only if balances.json has an advance entry for this engineer that is either (a) pending with an apply_when condition the current gross satisfies → render an "Applied This Month" block, OR (b) pending with the condition not yet satisfied → render a "Carried Forward" block, OR (c) settled with applied_period == current period → render a historical "Applied This Month" block. If no entry matches, omit the block entirely. Use the friendly month name in headings ("March Advance — Carried Forward", not "2026-03 Advance — Carried Forward").
Volume note: present only when the manager has supplied a per-engineer note for the period. Don't auto-generate volume notes from velocity data — the manager decides when context is owed.
Footnotes: if any rows are struck through, append a ## Notes for Review section explaining each. Tone: factual, second-person, invite the engineer to flag if our judgment is wrong.
Net total: gross - applied_advance. This is the amount the engineer invoices.
Reference code: GC-ENG-<period>-<reference_initials>. For half-month periods append A or B (GC-ENG-2026-03B-DB).

Tone

These statements are sent to the engineer. Write everything in plain second-person prose as if you're the manager talking to the contractor:

✅ "In March we paid you KES 5,000 against work that came in at KES 2,500..."
❌ "March overpayment from bounty rubric calibration. Originally agreed to draw down against April work..."

The rationale field in balances.json is rendered verbatim into the engineer-facing block, so it must already be in this voice. Do not write internal-finance language there.

Confirmation gate before writing balances.json

After rendering the statements but before writing the updated balances.json:

Print a diff summary to the console: which advances would transition pending → applied or applied → settled, with engineer names and amounts.
Wait for explicit user confirmation (y / yes).
Only on confirmation, write the updated balances.json.

Ops & Review Contribution Detection

Inputs:

ops-rates.yaml (next to this SKILL.md) — defines categories, rates (KES), keyword detectors, minimum comment length, and the list of Fizzy boards + card-number range to scan.
fizzy_user_id field on each engineer in engineers.yaml — required for attribution. Discoverable from any card's /comments.json endpoint by inspecting creator.id.

Algorithm:

For each card number in ops-rates.yaml > card_scan_range, fetch /comments.json (parallelize via thread pool, ~25 workers, ~10 seconds for 800 cards). Also fetch the card metadata itself (/cards/{n}.json) so card creators can be matched for the prod-triage category.

The comments endpoint paginates at 15 comments/page via a Link: <…?page=2>; rel="next" response header. You MUST follow the Link rel="next" header to exhaustion per card, or you silently drop every comment past the 15th on busy cards — exactly the high-traffic infra/QA threads you most want to see (e.g. May card #179 had 47 comments; reading page 1 only saw 15). This under-counts everyone. The get() helper must return both the parsed body AND resp.headers.get('Link'). Reference implementation (verified working 2026-05-30):
```
def scan(n):
    out = []; url = f'https://app.fizzy.do/{ACCT}/cards/{n}/comments.json'; pages = 0
    while url and pages < 12:                      # 12-page safety cap
        data, link = get(url)                      # get() must also return resp.headers.get('Link')
        if not isinstance(data, list): break
        out.extend(data); pages += 1
        m = re.search(r'<([^>]+)>;\s*rel="next"', link or '')
        url = m.group(1) if m else None
    return n, out
```
Filter to: authored by an active engineer (via fizzy_user_id map) within the analysis window AND on/after the engineer's bounty_start_date if set. (See "Per-engineer bounty start date" below.)
Classify each surface independently:
- Comment-based categories (ticket-review, pr-review, qa-handoff, manual-qa): walk in priority order. A comment matches if it (a) meets min_length, (b) hits any of detect_any keywords, AND (c) hits all of detect_all clauses (each clause requires any of its keywords). Unmatched comments longer than track_other_min_length surface as "uncategorized" so the manager can refine the detectors.
- Card-creation categories (prod-triage): when a category specifies surface: card_creation, scan card metadata instead of comments. Match if the card was created by the engineer's fizzy_user_id, on a board in the category's boards list, with a title hitting any of title_detect_any. Each matching card counts once at rate_kes regardless of how the engineer later updates it.
- QA-verdict surface (qa-verdict, surface: qa_verdict): a CAPACITY count (tickets tested), NOT a paid category. Detect a QA verdict by the structural signal first — a card moved into or out of any column in qa_column_ids is a QA action regardless of comment wording — then by the format-tolerant verdict_regex (case-insensitive) for comment-only sign-offs/blocks. Do NOT rely on the narrow manual-qa keywords for qa-role engineers: they miss ~97% of real QA verdicts (TICKET #X — QA REVIEW SIGN-OFF / QA BLOCK / UI TESTING SIGN-OFF). Dedup per distinct card; optionally split block/fail vs sign-off/pass via block_regex / signoff_regex. Surfaces in "Capacity & Invisible Work", not in the ops payable total.
Dedup ops matches per (engineer, card, category) — we do not pay for re-reviewing/re-testing the same card (Tobi, 2026-05-30). Within a single card, collapse repeat matches of the same category by the same engineer to ONE. Distinct-sub-branch exception: a single Fizzy card carrying multiple distinct sub-branch PRs (e.g. #672 = 672a–e) counts each distinct branch — detect distinct branch/PR refs in the matched comments and credit one per distinct ref; fall back to per-card (one) if no distinct refs are found. 4b. Self-QA / self-review does NOT double-pay (Tobi, 2026-07-01). An ops match (manual-QA, pr-review, ticket-review, qa-handoff) on a Fizzy card the same engineer also authored code for in the window is part of shipping that ticket — already covered by the code bounty + warranty — and is excluded from paid ops. Build authored_tickets[engineer] = the set of card numbers each engineer wrote code for (extract #NNNN / (NNNN) refs from their PR titles + git-log commit subjects, all records incl. excluded). When an ops comment by engineer E lands on card N, credit it only if N ∉ authored_tickets[E]. QA/review of another engineer's ticket still pays in full — this is why a dedicated QA role (Elvis) is credited for the bulk of their throughput while a code engineer QA-ing their own feature is not. Report the excluded self-QA total per engineer for transparency (don't silently drop it). NOTE: this is a paid-ops rule only — the qa-verdict capacity surface (§5g-bis) still counts self-verdicts, since capacity is a throughput signal, not a payout.
Sum per-engineer per-category: count × rate_kes = subtotal. Net ops = sum of all category subtotals.

Retainer awareness (see engineers.yaml > employment):
- employment: bounty (or absent) → ops + bounty figure is payable; behaves as today.
- employment: retainer, retainer_role: engineering → compute bounty + ops as shadow-bounty (not paid — retainer) (Fix 5). EXCLUDE it from team total payable; show it separately, labeled.
- employment: retainer, retainer_role: qa → suppress the PR/shadow-bounty entirely. Measure on QA throughput (manual-QA sessions + tickets tested via the qa-verdict surface) in "Capacity & Invisible Work". Near-zero QA throughput in the window is a flag to surface, not a number to compute.

Render in statement:

New section "Ops & Review Contributions" (after "Bounty Summary") with one row per category present.
Net payable becomes bounty_gross + ops_total - applied_advance.
If the engineer has bounty AND ops, the statement also includes a "Total" block summing the two before the advance/invoice section so the engineer can read the math at a glance.

Founder, QA, and unregistered contributors

Founder: never gets a pre-invoice statement (sweat equity).
QA (Elvis): never gets a PR-based statement. As a retainer_role: qa engineer he is measured on QA throughput (manual-QA + qa-verdict tickets tested) in Capacity & Invisible Work, not on PRs or shadow-bounty.
Retainer engineers (employment: retainer): never get a payable pre-invoice statement — the retainer does not stack with bounty. Their bounty + ops is computed as internal-only shadow-bounty (a floor, not a ceiling) and excluded from team total payable. The only thing ever shared with a retained engineer is the value note, never the shadow-bounty number.
Engineers with PRs but no engineers.yaml entry: team payout report counts their bounty; no statement file is written. The skill prints a one-line warning suggesting the user add them to engineers.yaml if they should be invoiced.

Machine-readable payout export (`--payout-json`)

Shape: a JSON array, one object per engineer who got a statement (retainer engineers included — they invoice their flat retainer even though they get no bounty statement). Fields:

[
  {
    "github": "daniella-mu",              // engineers.yaml primary key (join key downstream)
    "display_name": "Daniella Mutai",
    "employment": "bounty",               // "bounty" | "retainer"
    "reference_code": "GC-ENG-2026-06-DM",// GC-ENG-… for bounty, GC-RET-… for retainer
    "period_label": "June 2026 (1–30 June)",
    "generated": "2026-06",               // the period key
    "code_total": 30000,                  // bounty gross (net of struck rows)
    "ops_total": 5385,
    "net_total": 35385,                   // code_total + ops_total − applied_advance; the amount invoiced
    "work":  [ {"title": "...", "repo": "nts", "tier": "L", "amt": 2000} ],
    "tiers": [ {"tier": "S", "count": 40, "rate": 500, "subtotal": 20000} ],
    "ops":   [ {"label": "PR Review (skill-assisted)", "count": 39, "rate": 40, "subtotal": 1560} ]
  },
  {
    "github": "jush34",
    "display_name": "Theophilus Juma",
    "employment": "retainer",
    "reference_code": "GC-RET-2026-06-TJ",
    "period_label": "June 2026 (1–30 June)",
    "generated": "2026-06",
    "retainer_kes_month": 30000           // retainer people carry this instead of the bounty fields
  }
]

Rules that keep it faithful to the statements:

net_total already reflects any applied advance (same figure the engineer is told to invoice). work/tiers exclude struck (duplicate-suspect / setup-noise) rows, matching the statement.
Retainer engineers: emit employment: "retainer" + retainer_kes_month, and use the GC-RET-… reference code. Do not emit their shadow-bounty numbers here — the flat retainer is what they invoice.
Amounts are integers (KES). No currency symbols, no thousands separators.

Bounty Rate Reference

These rates are fixed in KES (Kenyan Shillings). They are intentionally conservative — the team is bootstrapped and operating in the East African market.

Tier	Rate (KES)	~USD @ 130	Scope
S	500	~$3.85	Single, well-defined output with a clear finish line (bug fix, copy edit, UI tweak)
M	1,000	~$7.70	Complete deliverable with multiple steps or components (new feature, process doc)
L	2,000	~$15.40	Substantial end-to-end deliverable spanning multiple sessions (full feature, campaign, detailed report)
XL	3,500	~$26.90	High-judgment deliverable requiring significant planning, iteration, or cross-functional context (system architecture, go-to-market strategy, full product spec)

Role-specific notes

QA (Elvis/Much1r1): QA work is measured by defect escape rate and test coverage, not PR volume. Elvis is excluded from the PR-based bounty table and tracked separately. If QA contributors submit code PRs, those are bounty-eligible like anyone else's.
New contributors (first 30 days): Contributors in their first 30 days of activity are marked with a ramping-up tag. Their tier distribution is shown for context but the manager should expect S-heavy output during onboarding — this is normal, not underperformance.
Founder: Tracked in a separate section for workload visibility. Not bounty-eligible (sweat equity).

Implementation Notes

Run all gh pr list commands in parallel (one per repo) for speed; for source: git-log repos substitute the git log --numstat pull from Step 2b (also parallelizable)
Fetch gh pr view data (files, reviews) only for PRs above S-tier threshold to avoid API rate limits
Use Python for data processing — it handles JSON, dates, and table formatting well
The analysis script is self-contained in a Python block. Allowed deps: stdlib + pyyaml (for parsing repos.yaml, engineers.yaml, ops-rates.yaml). Install with pip3 install --quiet pyyaml if missing.
Fizzy auth: the --pre-invoice mode hits the Fizzy API for ops detection. Source the token from .env.local before running: set -a && source <repo>/.env.local && set +a — exposes FIZZY_API_TOKEN for the Python script to read via os.environ. See .claude/rules/env-local-credentials.md.
Fizzy API patterns: use urllib.request (stdlib) with Authorization: Bearer ${FIZZY_API_TOKEN} and User-Agent: VettedAI/1.0. Always append .json to action endpoints. See .claude/rules/fizzy-api-patterns.md. Parallelize card-fetches via ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=25) — ~10 seconds for 800-card scan.
Fizzy comments paginate at 15/page via Link: rel=next — follow to exhaustion or you silently undercount busy cards. The get() helper must surface resp.headers.get('Link') so the scan loop can chase rel="next" (reference loop in the Ops algorithm, step 1).
Fizzy comment body is an object {plain_text, html}, NOT a bare string. Read body['plain_text'] (fall back to stripping body['html']); treating body as a string throws TypeError. Same for QA-verdict / resolved-by-comment detection.
Card scan range in ops-rates.yaml > card_scan_range should be tuned periodically as Fizzy card numbers grow. Underestimating misses recent ops; overestimating just costs a few extra seconds.
If lines/files counts look anomalous (e.g., >50K lines in a single PR), flag it as likely containing generated/vendor files
Always note the CI noise percentage in the final summary so managers see the true signal
Deflation bias: default to lower tier. The goal is accuracy, not punishment
Flags are advisory only: show them prominently so the manager can decide during the review period. Never silently downgrade — transparency builds trust
Revert-pairs are the one automatic deduction — merged-then-reverted PRs have zero net value, no judgment needed
When showing bounty estimates, show gross and the revert deduction so the delta is clear

Bounty + Ops Reference

System	Source of truth	What it counts
Bounty (PRs)	`gh pr list` across `repos.yaml` (or `git log --numstat` for `source: git-log` repos)	Merged PRs / direct-push commits into integration branches, tiered S/M/L/XL by lower of files/lines
Ops contributions	Fizzy comments + card creations across `ops-rates.yaml > boards`	pr-review, qa-handoff, ticket-review, manual-qa (comments) + prod-triage (card creations). Deduped per `(engineer, card, category)` — no re-reviews; distinct-sub-branch exception
Capacity & Invisible Work (signal, not paid)	Fizzy comments + `gh pr list --state open`	PRs reviewed, tickets resolved-by-comment, QA verdicts (tickets tested), open/in-flight PRs + lines
Employment / payability	`engineers.yaml` `employment`	`bounty` → payable; `retainer` → shadow-bounty (not paid, excluded from team total); `retainer_role: qa` → suppress shadow-bounty, measure on QA throughput
Advances	`reports/payouts/balances.json`	Explicit advance agreements, lifecycle pending → applied → settled
Per-engineer eligibility	`engineers.yaml` `bounty_start_date`	Filter applied to PRs / comments / card creations: `event_date >= bounty_start_date`

engineering-pulse

More from this repository

More from this repository

Engineering Pulse — Contributor Productivity & Bounty Analysis

Context budget — the heavy data stays in the script, never the conversation

When to Use

Repos to Analyze

Repo-allowlist drift check (run every report — the sustainable scaling mechanism)

No-silent-zero rule (coverage honesty)

Step 1: Determine Time Window

Step 2: Pull Merged PR Data

Step 2b: source: git-log repos (no GitHub PRs)

Step 3: Classify PR Size Tiers

Classification rule: LOWER tier wins

Deductions: what does NOT count

Advisory flags

Step 4: Detect "Verify Deployment" / CI Noise

Step 5: Generate the Report

5a. Per-Author Summary (excludes founder)

5b. Founder Activity (separate section)

5c. PR Size Distribution

5d. Velocity

5e. Repo Breakdown

5f. Bounty Estimate

5f-ter. Retainer Output — ROI signal (standard monthly section)

5g. Reviews Given

5g-bis. Capacity & Invisible Work (signal, not payment)

5h. Summary Table

5i. Management Insights

Step 6: Save the Report

Report types

Draft reports

Payout reports

Step 7: Monthly Payout Cycle

During the 48-hour review period:

Late PRs (merged after the 28th)

Mid-month draft cadence (recommended)

Step 8: Pre-Invoice Mode (--pre-invoice)

Inputs

Output

Rendering rules

Tone

Confirmation gate before writing balances.json

Ops & Review Contribution Detection

Founder, QA, and unregistered contributors

Machine-readable payout export (--payout-json)

Bounty Rate Reference

Role-specific notes

Implementation Notes

Bounty + Ops Reference

Engineering Pulse — Contributor Productivity & Bounty Analysis

Context budget — the heavy data stays in the script, never the conversation

When to Use

Repos to Analyze

Repo-allowlist drift check (run every report — the sustainable scaling mechanism)

No-silent-zero rule (coverage honesty)

Step 1: Determine Time Window

Step 2: Pull Merged PR Data

Step 2b: source: git-log repos (no GitHub PRs)

Step 3: Classify PR Size Tiers

Classification rule: LOWER tier wins

Deductions: what does NOT count

Advisory flags

Step 4: Detect "Verify Deployment" / CI Noise

Step 5: Generate the Report

5a. Per-Author Summary (excludes founder)

5b. Founder Activity (separate section)

5c. PR Size Distribution

5d. Velocity

5e. Repo Breakdown

5f. Bounty Estimate

5f-ter. Retainer Output — ROI signal (standard monthly section)

5g. Reviews Given

5g-bis. Capacity & Invisible Work (signal, not payment)

5h. Summary Table

5i. Management Insights

Step 6: Save the Report

Report types

Draft reports

Payout reports

Step 2b: `source: git-log` repos (no GitHub PRs)

Step 8: Pre-Invoice Mode (`--pre-invoice`)

Machine-readable payout export (`--payout-json`)

Step 2b: `source: git-log` repos (no GitHub PRs)

Step 8: Pre-Invoice Mode (`--pre-invoice`)

Machine-readable payout export (`--payout-json`)