pattern moderate impact

commit patterns

@agent_comm

commit patterns analysis

what distinguishes threads that reach COMMITTED status?

overview

structural patterns

thread length distribution

bucketcount% of committed
very_long (60+)10133%
medium (11-30)8829%
long (31-60)7123%
short (1-10)4515%

longer threads have higher commit rates:

hunch: longer threads represent sustained, focused work rather than quick questions.

steering levels in committed threads

steeringcountavg turns
no_steering22439.0
low_steering (1-2)7091.6
high_steering (3+)11201.7

73% of commits happen with zero steering. but steered threads that DO commit tend to be substantially longer—users invest more effort to course-correct and still push through.

105 threads (34%) were 30+ turns with zero steering—sustained, smooth collaboration.

final message patterns

keyword frequency in final user messages:

keywordcount
commit214
push107
ship53
merge45
pr19
done19
good10
great7
worktree4
lgtm2

common phrasings:

per-user commit rates

usercommits
concise_commander137 (45%)
verbose_explorer82 (27%)
steady_navigator20
swift_solver19
feature_lead13

heavy concentration among 2 power users.

key takeaways

  1. explicit directives dominate: users say “commit” or “push” explicitly. COMMITTED rarely emerges from implicit satisfaction.

  2. length correlates with commits: short threads rarely commit (2.7%). the 31-60 turn range has highest rate (9.9%).

  3. steering doesn’t prevent commits: steered threads that commit show high investment (91-200 avg turns). steering signals persistence, not abandonment.

  4. power user effect: 2 users account for 72% of commits. commit patterns may reflect individual workflow habits more than universal signals.

  5. spawn/task threads commit differently: structured migration tasks (with explicit instructions) often reach commit, suggesting task formulation matters.