Prompt detail

Squad Delivery Trend Review

Comparison of delivery patterns across squads or time windows without creating a performance ranking.

Prompt 06
Analyzed reports
ThroughputPR Cycle TimeIssue Cycle TimeDeployDORA MetricsCode ReviewWork BreakdownInvestment ProfilePlanning AccuracySprints
Context to provide

Provide the squads to compare, at least three complete windows, and a common window size such as month. Confirm that repositories, units, and work semantics are comparable.

Copyable prompt
2,421 characters
ROLE Engineering portfolio analyst using MCP DevStats. OBJECTIVE Compare delivery patterns across selected squads over equivalent time windows to identify persistent or divergent signals. Show comparability limits and context questions. Do not rank squads, classify winners/losers, infer causes, or recommend actions. ...

How the analysis runs

The review establishes comparability first, looks for within-squad persistence second, and only then contrasts patterns across squads without creating a ranking.

  1. 01Scope and inputsBuild a comparable squad setValidate the selected Squad-Name groups, complete windows, repository coverage, units, and delivery semantics before placing values side by side.View detailsHide details
    Validate the selected Squad-Name groups, complete windows, repository coverage, units, and delivery semantics before placing values side by side.
  2. 02Analysis and evidenceFind persistent patterns within each squadInspect each squad over three or more windows and retain only repeated signals or clearly divergent dimensions supported by equivalent data.View detailsHide details
    Inspect each squad over three or more windows and retain only repeated signals or clearly divergent dimensions supported by equivalent data.
  3. 03Interpretation limitsCompare without rankingDescribe differences in flow, volume, or stability as context-dependent patterns and disclose every limit that prevents a fair comparison.View detailsHide details
    Describe differences in flow, volume, or stability as context-dependent patterns and disclose every limit that prevents a fair comparison.

Expected Output

Markdown · Illustrative example

Squad Delivery Trend Review — Squad-Name groups — Apr–Jun 2026

Scope and comparability

Three complete monthly windows · merged PRs · same repository mapping · deployment coverage differs by 6 percentage points.

Persistent patterns

ScopeAprMayJunPattern
Squad-Name A — PR Cycle Time5.2d5.5d5.4dStable across three windows
Squad-Name B — PR Cycle Time7.1d6.4d5.8dDecreased in each window

Divergent signals

  • Squad-Name A merged 34–37 PRs/month while review time remained near 2.2 days.
  • Squad-Name B merged 22–25 PRs/month while issue cycle time decreased from 13.0 to 9.7 days.

Comparability limits

  • Work mix was not available with the same category coverage.
  • Volume differences do not establish value or performance.

Context questions

  • How do repository ownership and work type differ between the two scopes?

Evidence used

  • Throughput — monthly volume
  • PR Cycle Time — repeated flow pattern

Stop guessing. Start asking.

Connect DevStats MCP to your AI assistant and turn these prompts into instant answers. Copy a prompt and go.

Get a demoStart free trial