Skip to content

📊 Metrics ​

Measure only what helps the team make decisions.

Meeting-to-Production Lead Time (median per week) lower is better
050100150hourstarget 4812096786455464034W1W2W3W4W5W6W7W8

Illustrative example data.

This is the number the whole model is judged on: how long a client need takes to reach production.

Flow metrics ​

The core delivery metrics, measured per squad over rolling four-week windows:

MetricDefinitionDirectionTarget
Meeting-to-Production Lead TimeClient meeting transcription → running in productionDown< 24–48 hours for standard changes
Deployment frequencyProduction deployments per weekUpMultiple daily deployments
Change failure rateDeployments causing rollback, flag shutoff, or incidentDown< 1%
Time to restoreDetection of production fault → mitigationDown< 15 minutes

Metrics per use case ​

Flow metrics measure delivery end to end. Also measure individual AI tasks, such as test creation or documentation updates. Track these values per work item:

MeasureQuestion it answers
Time spentHow long does this subtask take for one work item?
IterationsHow many attempts does it take to get it right?
Human interventionHow often does a person have to step in?
First-pass successHow often is it right the first time?

Use existing issue, branch, change-request, and CI timestamps—not manual timers. For token spend, attribution, and financial ROI, see Cost Management. The charts below are illustrative.

Automated test creation (Code) ​

Generate tests with the code. Track the time spent and whether better context and skills reduce it.

Where the time goes in one work item lower is better
0102030minutes182294Generate codeCreate testsFix loopDocumentation

Illustrative example data.

Test creation is the biggest slice here, so it is worth measuring on its own.

Time spent on test creation, per work item (median per week) lower is better
0204060minutestarget 304238353329272422W1W2W3W4W5W6W7W8

Illustrative example data.

A falling line suggests better context and skills. If it stays flat, check for missing test instructions. If it rises, check for vague acceptance criteria.

Fix loops (Code) ​

Average fix loops per work item lower is better
0246loopswarning 34.23.83.53.12.92.6W1W2W3W4W5W6

Illustrative example data.

Above 3 loops, the work item was probably too big or too vague when it left Plan.

Backlog issue creation (Triage) ​

Hours from the end of a meeting to a ranked backlog issue lower is better
05101520hourstarget 8201612976W1W2W3W4W5W6

Illustrative example data.

This is the speed of turning a client conversation into logged, ranked work.

Deterministic controls on the first run (Prove) ​

Pull requests passing all controls on the first CI run higher is better
0255075100%target 80%626671757983W1W2W3W4W5W6

Illustrative example data.

A low rate points to weak automated checks in Code or missing context.

Time to restore (Learn) ​

Minutes from detecting a fault to mitigating it lower is better
010203040minutestarget 15383126191412W1W2W3W4W5W6

Illustrative example data.

The same targets as the flow metrics apply. The use case view shows which part of the work is improving.

AI autonomy & leverage metrics ​

MetricDefinitionWatch for
AI code generation sharePercentage of code, tests, and docs written by AITarget 100% (zero human syntax typing)
First-pass green rate in CodeWork items where the agent's automated checks and tests were green on the first run< 80% indicates Persistent Context drift or missing instructions
Deterministic control pass ratePull requests passing all deterministic controls on the first CI run in Prove< 80% indicates weak automated checks or missing context
Fix-loop countAuto-fix loops required before a green pass> 3 loops indicates poor task decomposition in Plan
Acceptance rateGenerated artifacts merged without substantial reworkFalling indicates Persistent Context drift
Rework rateAccepted output corrected within 14 daysRising indicates validation is too shallow
Human rework ratePull requests where a human had to alter code syntaxMust trend to 0%; fixes belong in context, not code
Automated validation turnaroundTime from the deterministic pass to the recorded Prove verdictRising indicates a slow assessment or missing evidence; track requested human checkpoints separately
Assisted share per stageShare of each stage's output produced with AIOutput concentrated in 4 — Code only
Context hit rateSessions where committed Persistent Context was sufficientFalling indicates artifacts missing or stale

Outcome metrics ​

MetricDefinition
Hypothesis validation rateValidated / total hypotheses closed
Feature deletion rateInvalidated features removed within one cycle
Time to evidenceBacklog issue created → first real usage signal

A rate near 100% may mean the team only tests safe bets. Expect some hypotheses to fail, and remove invalidated features.

Quality metrics ​

MetricDefinition
Escaped defect rateDefects found in production / total defects found
Coverage on changed linesPer pull request, non-decreasing
Mean review depth on high-risk changesTime spent reviewing, weighted by blast radius

What is deliberately not measured ​

Not measuredWhy
Lines of codeAI makes it meaningless and perverse
Story points velocityMeasures estimation, not value
Assistant suggestion acceptance in the editorCorrelates with nothing that matters

Review ​

Review metrics monthly. Remove any metric that has not informed a decision in two quarters.

Published and maintained by ALTEN