You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This comprehensive analysis examines 126 agentic workflow lock files totaling 10.08 MB across the githubnext/gh-aw repository. The analysis reveals robust automation patterns with strong emphasis on scheduled workflows (88 instances), manual triggers (109 workflow_dispatch), and comprehensive safe output mechanisms. The repository demonstrates mature workflow architecture with an average of 8.1 jobs and 77.7 steps per workflow.
Key Highlights:
126 lock files analyzed, ranging from 29 KB to 137 KB
86.5% use manual triggers (workflow_dispatch)
69.8% include scheduled automation (cron)
100% include safety mechanisms (missing_tool and noop)
Primary AI Engine: GitHub Copilot (60 workflows) followed by Claude (27 workflows)
Full Report
File Size Distribution
Size Range
Count
Percentage
Details
< 10 KB
0
0.0%
No ultra-small workflows
10-50 KB
5
4.0%
Minimal configuration workflows
50-100 KB
102
81.0%
Standard workflow size
> 100 KB
19
15.1%
Complex multi-job workflows
Size Statistics:
Total Repository Size: 10,568,525 bytes (10.08 MB)
Insight: The tight clustering around 50-100 KB suggests a consistent workflow complexity level, indicating mature standardization across the repository.
Trigger Analysis
Most Popular Triggers
Trigger Type
Count
Percentage
Usage Pattern
workflow_dispatch
109
86.5%
Manual execution capability
schedule
88
69.8%
Automated periodic runs
pull_request
16
12.7%
PR-triggered automation
issue_comment
14
11.1%
Comment-based triggers
issues
13
10.3%
Issue event triggers
discussion_comment
6
4.8%
Discussion interactions
discussion
5
4.0%
Discussion events
pull_request_review_comment
5
4.0%
PR review interactions
workflow_run
2
1.6%
Chained workflows
push
2
1.6%
Code push triggers
workflow_call
1
0.8%
Reusable workflow
Common Trigger Combinations
The majority of workflows combine manual and automated execution:
Use case: Community management and interaction agents
Schedule Patterns
Schedule (Cron)
Count
Human-Readable
Peak Time
0 14 * * 1-5
5
Weekdays at 2:00 PM UTC
Afternoon reports
0 13 * * 1-5
4
Weekdays at 1:00 PM UTC
Midday analysis
0 11 * * 1-5
4
Weekdays at 11:00 AM UTC
Morning metrics
0 9 * * 1
4
Mondays at 9:00 AM UTC
Weekly summaries
0 6 * * 0
2
Sundays at 6:00 AM UTC
Weekend maintenance
Schedule Insights:
Workday Focus: Heavy emphasis on weekday execution (1-5 = Mon-Fri)
Business Hours: Majority run during 9 AM - 4 PM UTC
Scattered Timing: Many workflows use specific minutes (e.g., 48, 37, 56) to avoid concurrent execution
Weekly Patterns: Monday morning runs common for weekly reports
Distribution Strategy: Times spread across hours to prevent resource contention
Safe Outputs Analysis
All workflows implement the safe outputs framework with varying capabilities:
Safe Output Types Distribution
Safe Output Type
Count
Percentage
Purpose
missing_tool
121
96.0%
Error reporting capability
noop
121
96.0%
No-operation transparency
create_discussion
43
34.1%
Create GitHub discussions
add_comment
35
27.8%
Comment on issues/PRs
create_issue
32
25.4%
Create GitHub issues
create_pull_request
26
20.6%
Create pull requests
add_labels
13
10.3%
Label management
update_issue
5
4.0%
Modify existing issues
hide_comment
3
2.4%
Moderation capability
Key Observations:
Universal Safety: 96% implement both missing_tool (graceful failure) and noop (transparency logging)
Discussion-First: 34% prefer discussions over issues for reporting (non-actionable insights)
Balanced Output: Even distribution between discussions (43), comments (35), and issues (32)
Automation Capability: 21% can create pull requests (code modification workflows)
Moderation Features: 13 workflows include labeling, 3 include comment hiding (community management)
Safe Output Combinations
Workflows commonly combine multiple output types for flexibility:
Combination
Count
Use Case
create_issue + add_comment
8
Create tracked issues with context
add_comment + create_pull_request
4
PR creation with explanation
create_discussion + create_issue + add_comment
2
Multi-channel reporting
create_discussion + create_pull_request
2
Discussion + code changes
create_issue + add_comment + create_pull_request
2
Full automation pipeline
Insight: The combination patterns show sophisticated workflows that choose output channels based on context (e.g., create discussion for insights, issue for bugs, PR for fixes).
Structural Characteristics
Job Complexity
Average Jobs per Workflow: 8.1 jobs
Maximum Jobs in Single Workflow: 14 jobs
Average Steps per Workflow: 77.7 steps
Maximum Steps: 112 steps (highly complex workflows)
Average Timeout: 16.7 minutes per timeout configuration
Typical Lock File Structure
Based on statistical analysis, a representative .lock.yml file has:
Analysis of concurrency groups reveals engine preferences:
AI Engine
Workflows
Percentage
Concurrency Pattern
GitHub Copilot
60
47.6%
gh-aw-copilot-${{ github.workflow }}
Claude
27
21.4%
gh-aw-claude-${{ github.workflow }}
Codex
7
5.6%
gh-aw-codex-${{ github.workflow }}
Generic
93
73.8%
gh-aw-${{ github.workflow }}
Notes:
Some workflows support multiple engines (counts > 126)
Generic concurrency groups may indicate engine-agnostic workflows
Copilot is the dominant engine, showing GitHub integration preference
Model Detection
Model
References
Context
claude-code
190
Primary Claude-based automation
claude-opus-4
3
Advanced reasoning tasks
Claude-powered
1
General reference
MCP Server Usage
Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers extend agent capabilities:
MCP Server
Workflows
Percentage
Capabilities
mcp__github
31
24.6%
GitHub API operations
mcp__playwright
5
4.0%
Browser automation, web scraping
mcp__arxiv
1
0.8%
Research paper access
mcp__deepwiki
1
0.8%
Wikipedia integration
Insight: GitHub MCP server dominates (31 workflows), enabling sophisticated repository interactions beyond standard GitHub Actions capabilities.
Concurrency Patterns
Workflows use concurrency groups to prevent conflicts:
Concurrency Group Pattern
Count
Purpose
gh-aw-copilot-${{ github.workflow }}
115
Copilot engine serialization
gh-aw-${{ github.workflow }}
93
Workflow-level locking
gh-aw-claude-${{ github.workflow }}
54
Claude engine serialization
gh-aw-codex-${{ github.workflow }}
14
Codex engine serialization
Issue/PR-specific groups
19
Per-item concurrency control
Pattern: Engine-specific concurrency groups prevent resource contention when multiple instances would conflict.
Permission Patterns
Universal Pattern: All 126 workflows follow minimal permission principles:
Job-Level Permissions: Permissions granted per-job, not workflow-level
Common Grants:
contents: read - Repository access
issues: read/write - Issue management
pull-requests: read/write - PR operations
discussions: write - Discussion creation
Security Posture: No workflow grants excessive permissions
Principle: Least privilege, scoped to specific jobs
Interesting Findings
1. Perfect Safety Compliance
All 126 workflows (100%) implement both missing_tool and noop safe outputs, demonstrating exceptional safety culture and error handling practices.
2. Scattered Scheduling Strategy
Workflows use non-standard cron minutes (37, 48, 56, etc.) to distribute load rather than clustering at :00 or :30, showing sophisticated resource management.
3. Discussion-First Culture
34% of workflows create discussions vs 25% creating issues, suggesting preference for collaborative dialogue over formal issue tracking for agent insights.
4. Multi-Engine Support
Some workflows appear to support multiple AI engines (Copilot, Claude, Codex), with engine selection likely controlled by runtime configuration.
5. High Step Count
Average 78 steps per workflow indicates complex orchestration with multiple setup, execution, and cleanup phases - not simple single-action workflows.
6. Workday-Centric Automation
88% of scheduled runs target weekdays only (1-5), showing respect for business hours and weekend downtime.
7. Minimal Outliers
Tight size distribution (81% between 50-100KB) indicates strong standardization and potentially shared templates or generators.
8. Comprehensive Event Coverage
Some workflows monitor 6+ event types simultaneously (discussions, issues, PRs, comments) for omnipresent agent assistance.
Recommendations
1. Size Optimization Opportunities
The 19 workflows >100KB should be reviewed for potential splitting or refactoring to improve maintainability and execution time.
2. Schedule Consolidation
Consider consolidating the 88 different cron schedules into fewer time slots with deliberate staggering to improve predictability while maintaining load distribution.
3. Permission Documentation
Document the permission strategy used across workflows to ensure consistency as the repository grows and new workflows are added.
4. Engine Selection Documentation
Create clear guidelines for when to use Copilot vs Claude vs Codex based on task characteristics and observed performance patterns.
5. MCP Server Expansion
With only 4 MCP servers in use, explore additional servers (e.g., for Slack, Jira, databases) to expand agent capabilities.
6. Safe Output Standardization
Consider creating workflow templates that include the standard safe output configuration (missing_tool, noop, create_discussion, add_comment) to ensure consistency.
7. Monitoring Dashboard
Build a dashboard tracking workflow execution patterns, failure rates, and output type usage over time to identify trends.
8. Workflow Templates
The consistency suggests template usage - formalize and document these templates for easier onboarding and maintenance.
Historical Trends
First analysis run - no historical comparison available
Future runs will track:
Lock file count growth
Average size evolution
Trigger pattern shifts
Safe output adoption rates
Engine preference changes
Methodology
Analysis Approach:
Data Collection: Python-based YAML parsing with regex extraction
Lock Files Analyzed: 126 .lock.yml files
Cache Memory: Scripts persisted to /tmp/gh-aw/cache-memory/scripts/ for reuse
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Executive Summary
This comprehensive analysis examines 126 agentic workflow lock files totaling 10.08 MB across the githubnext/gh-aw repository. The analysis reveals robust automation patterns with strong emphasis on scheduled workflows (88 instances), manual triggers (109 workflow_dispatch), and comprehensive safe output mechanisms. The repository demonstrates mature workflow architecture with an average of 8.1 jobs and 77.7 steps per workflow.
Key Highlights:
Full Report
File Size Distribution
Size Statistics:
Insight: The tight clustering around 50-100 KB suggests a consistent workflow complexity level, indicating mature standardization across the repository.
Trigger Analysis
Most Popular Triggers
Common Trigger Combinations
The majority of workflows combine manual and automated execution:
schedule + workflow_dispatch: 78 workflows (61.9%)
pull_request + schedule + workflow_dispatch: 8 workflows (6.3%)
Multi-event workflows: 6 workflows
Schedule Patterns
0 14 * * 1-50 13 * * 1-50 11 * * 1-50 9 * * 10 6 * * 0Schedule Insights:
Safe Outputs Analysis
All workflows implement the safe outputs framework with varying capabilities:
Safe Output Types Distribution
Key Observations:
Safe Output Combinations
Workflows commonly combine multiple output types for flexibility:
Insight: The combination patterns show sophisticated workflows that choose output channels based on context (e.g., create discussion for insights, issue for bugs, PR for fixes).
Structural Characteristics
Job Complexity
Typical Lock File Structure
Based on statistical analysis, a representative .lock.yml file has:
Workflow Architecture Pattern
The standard workflow follows this structure:
AI Engine Distribution
Analysis of concurrency groups reveals engine preferences:
gh-aw-copilot-${{ github.workflow }}gh-aw-claude-${{ github.workflow }}gh-aw-codex-${{ github.workflow }}gh-aw-${{ github.workflow }}Notes:
Model Detection
MCP Server Usage
Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers extend agent capabilities:
Insight: GitHub MCP server dominates (31 workflows), enabling sophisticated repository interactions beyond standard GitHub Actions capabilities.
Concurrency Patterns
Workflows use concurrency groups to prevent conflicts:
gh-aw-copilot-${{ github.workflow }}gh-aw-${{ github.workflow }}gh-aw-claude-${{ github.workflow }}gh-aw-codex-${{ github.workflow }}Pattern: Engine-specific concurrency groups prevent resource contention when multiple instances would conflict.
Permission Patterns
Universal Pattern: All 126 workflows follow minimal permission principles:
contents: read- Repository accessissues: read/write- Issue managementpull-requests: read/write- PR operationsdiscussions: write- Discussion creationInteresting Findings
1. Perfect Safety Compliance
All 126 workflows (100%) implement both
missing_toolandnoopsafe outputs, demonstrating exceptional safety culture and error handling practices.2. Scattered Scheduling Strategy
Workflows use non-standard cron minutes (37, 48, 56, etc.) to distribute load rather than clustering at :00 or :30, showing sophisticated resource management.
3. Discussion-First Culture
34% of workflows create discussions vs 25% creating issues, suggesting preference for collaborative dialogue over formal issue tracking for agent insights.
4. Multi-Engine Support
Some workflows appear to support multiple AI engines (Copilot, Claude, Codex), with engine selection likely controlled by runtime configuration.
5. High Step Count
Average 78 steps per workflow indicates complex orchestration with multiple setup, execution, and cleanup phases - not simple single-action workflows.
6. Workday-Centric Automation
88% of scheduled runs target weekdays only (1-5), showing respect for business hours and weekend downtime.
7. Minimal Outliers
Tight size distribution (81% between 50-100KB) indicates strong standardization and potentially shared templates or generators.
8. Comprehensive Event Coverage
Some workflows monitor 6+ event types simultaneously (discussions, issues, PRs, comments) for omnipresent agent assistance.
Recommendations
1. Size Optimization Opportunities
The 19 workflows >100KB should be reviewed for potential splitting or refactoring to improve maintainability and execution time.
2. Schedule Consolidation
Consider consolidating the 88 different cron schedules into fewer time slots with deliberate staggering to improve predictability while maintaining load distribution.
3. Permission Documentation
Document the permission strategy used across workflows to ensure consistency as the repository grows and new workflows are added.
4. Engine Selection Documentation
Create clear guidelines for when to use Copilot vs Claude vs Codex based on task characteristics and observed performance patterns.
5. MCP Server Expansion
With only 4 MCP servers in use, explore additional servers (e.g., for Slack, Jira, databases) to expand agent capabilities.
6. Safe Output Standardization
Consider creating workflow templates that include the standard safe output configuration (missing_tool, noop, create_discussion, add_comment) to ensure consistency.
7. Monitoring Dashboard
Build a dashboard tracking workflow execution patterns, failure rates, and output type usage over time to identify trends.
8. Workflow Templates
The consistency suggests template usage - formalize and document these templates for easier onboarding and maintenance.
Historical Trends
First analysis run - no historical comparison available
Future runs will track:
Methodology
Analysis Approach:
/tmp/gh-aw/cache-memory/scripts/for reuse.github/workflows/*.lock.ymlValidation:
Limitations:
Analysis Duration: ~2 minutes
Data Freshness: Based on repository state as of 2025-12-27
Next Recommended Analysis: Q1 2026 for quarterly comparison
References:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions