Analyze GitHub project activity

Produce a succinct report on a GitHub project's activity — throughput, backlog burn-rate, and responsiveness — backed by matplotlib charts. The bundled analyze.py does the fetching, windowing, and plotting; your job is to run it and turn its JSON summary into a short, insightful report.

How to run

1. Resolve the target repo (owner/name), in this order:
   • An argument the user passed to /github-activity (e.g. /github-activity xenodium/agent-shell).
   • Otherwise, infer from the current directory's origin remote:

     gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner
     

   • If neither works, ask the user which repo.
2. Resolve the window. Default is the last 6 months. Honor any user phrasing ("last 3 months", "this year") via --months N.
3. Query the Emacs foreground color once (reuse if already known this session):

   emacsclient --eval '(face-foreground (quote default))'
   

   Returns a hex like "#eeffff". Pass it as --fg.
4. Run the analyzer (it shells out to gh, computes metrics, writes charts, prints a JSON summary):

   uv run --with matplotlib "$CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/github-activity/analyze.py" \
     --repo owner/name --months 6 --fg "#eeffff" --outdir /tmp
   

   If $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT is unset, use the skill's own directory path.
5. Read the JSON printed on stdout and write the report (structure below), embedding each returned chart path as a markdown image on its own line:

   ![throughput](/tmp/agent-ghactivity-throughput-XXXX.png)
   

Report structure (keep it tight)

Order the report bottom-line-up-front: lead with the takeaway, then the evidence, and keep each chart directly next to the prose that interprets it. A skimmer should get the whole story from the TL;DR alone; everything below it is drill-down.

• TL;DR — 2–3 bullets at the very top: the verdict on how active/healthy the project is, the one or two numbers that prove it, and the implication (e.g. "issues need a triage pass"). This is the report for anyone who reads only the top.

• Snapshot table — metrics as rows, PRs and Issues as the two columns, numeric columns right-aligned. Put the window in a caption line above the table (not as a row — it applies to both columns and would leave blank cells). One metric per row:

  Activity — last N months (FROM → TO)

  Metric	PRs	Issues
  Opened	…	…
  Closed	…	…
  Net (opened − closed)	…	…
  Open now	…	…
  Median days to close	…	…
  p90 days to close	…	…

  Emphasis: bold at most one or two cells — the value(s) that justify the headline (typically the concerning one: a large p90, a positive/growing net, or a high open now). Do not bold routinely, do not bold both the good and bad value, and don't use color or emoji (they don't render in terminal tables).

• Throughput — the chart, immediately followed by 1–2 bullets that read it (don't defer interpretation to a separate block). Draw from:

  • Is intake steady or spiking? Is closing keeping up (net trend)?
  • Are PRs healthier than issues (or vice versa)?
  • Steady drip vs lumpy cleanup bursts (look at busiest_weeks).

• Backlog — include only if it adds signal (a clear growth/decline trend); skip if flat. When included, put the chart with a single bullet noting the trend.

• Most-wanted open issues (optional) — the top entries from top_open_issues (open issues by 👍 reactions — a demand signal). List up to 3 as [#N](url) — title (👍 R, C comments). Skip if the list is empty (no issue has reactions). This is distinct from oldest_open: reactions show demand, age shows staleness.

• Next steps (optional, ≤3 bullets) — only when the data motivates a concrete action, and each must be specific: cite the actual items from oldest_open_issues / oldest_open_prs / top_open_issues as linked references (e.g. "Triage or close #142 — open 156 days"; "#511 has 8 👍 and 9 comments — high demand, still open"). Prefer high-demand items over merely old ones when prioritizing. Point at real signals (a growing net, an aging p90). Skip this section entirely when the project is healthy; never emit generic filler like "keep triaging issues" or "review PRs promptly". A bad actionable is worse than none.

Prefer concrete numbers over adjectives. Do not dump the raw JSON. Do not restate every weekly value — summarize the shape. Don't repeat the TL;DR verbatim lower down — the bullets under each chart should add detail, not echo.

Always link issue/PR references. Every time you mention a PR or issue anywhere in the report (TL;DR, bullets, tables, next steps), render it as a markdown link [#N](url) using the url field the analyzer provides for that item (oldest_open_* and top_open_issues each carry a url). Never leave a bare #N.

Rules

• Charts follow the matplotlib skill conventions: transparent background, Emacs FG color for text/spines/ticks, dark opaque legend box (facecolor='#1a1a2e', labelcolor=FG), hidden top/right spines, subtle grid. analyze.py already does this — pass the real --fg.
• Timestamped filenames (the script handles this). Never overwrite a fixed name.
• The final (current) week is partial; the script hatches it and flags partial: true — never compare it head-to-head with full weeks. Say "in-progress" when referencing it.
• If the repo has very little activity in the window (few PRs/issues), say so plainly and skip charts that would be noise.
• Requires gh (authenticated) and uv. If gh errors on auth or a missing repo, surface that instead of guessing.