Engineering manager 1-on-1 meeting brief generator

Generate a 1-on-1 brief from GitHub activity. Fully deterministic pipeline — 5 tool calls, zero sub-agent spawns.

Overview

PullStar fetches GitHub activity for one engineer (PRs authored, reviews given), runs a deterministic local scoring engine across five dimensions, and prepares an LLM input payload. The agent then performs LLM inference and finalizes the brief.

Quickstart:

text

run_brief.py --login steipete --pr-insights --days 7
Read llm_input_steipete.json, do the LLM inference, present the brief

Data Flow Summary:

Step	What runs	External calls
Ingest	run_brief.py → ingest.py	GitHub API
Score	run_brief.py → score.py	None
Prepare	run_brief.py → agent_prepare_1on1.py	None
Agent inference	Agent calls LLM	LLM provider
Finalize	Agent runs agent_finalize_1on1.py	None

⚠️ Important: Steps 1–3 run locally. Only the LLM inference step (step 4) sends data to your AI provider.

---

Requirements

• Python 3.11+
• Install dependencies: pip install PyGithub python-dotenv requests
• A GitHub personal access token (see Security section below)

---

Security & Privacy

Token Scope

Option	Where to create	Best for
Classic PAT (repo scope)	https://github.com/settings/tokens	Cross-user search, org-wide ingestion
Fine-grained PAT	https://github.com/settings/personal-access-tokens	Your own repos only

Fine-grained PATs cannot search across arbitrary users. Use a classic PAT for org-wide briefs.

Set GITHUB_ORG to narrow search to one organization.

Token Resolution Order

Secrets are resolved using layered lookup — first match wins:

1. --github-token CLI flag (override/debug only — never logged)
2. GITHUB_TOKEN environment variable
3. ~/.pullstar/credentials (key=value format)
4. .env in the skill directory

Data Privacy by Mode

Default (no --pr-insights):

• Only aggregated statistics and scores sent to LLM
• No raw PR text, comments, or review bodies included

PR Insights (--pr-insights):

• Bounded raw PR discussion text packaged into the LLM prompt
• Bounded to 5 PRs, 3 reviews/comments each, 600 char limit per item
• Review llm_input_{login}.json before inference if you have privacy concerns

---

Configuration

.env

Variable	Required	Description
GITHUB_TOKEN	Recommended	Classic PAT with repo scope. Omit for unauthenticated access (60 req/hr).
GITHUB_ORG	No	Scope ingestion to one org.

---

Usage

Standard run

bash

python run_brief.py --login jsmith

With PR insights

bash

python run_brief.py --login jsmith --pr-insights

Common options

bash

python run_brief.py --login jsmith --days 14          # wider lookback (default: 5)
python run_brief.py --login jsmith --max-results 10   # faster on high-activity users (default: 20)
python run_brief.py --login jsmith --api-mode rest    # force REST API (default: graphql)

All options

Flag	Default	Description
--login	required	Engineer GitHub login
--days	5	Lookback window in days
--pr-insights	off	Include PR review/comment context in LLM prompt
--max-results	20	Max search results to iterate (lower = faster)
--api-mode	graphql	graphql or rest
--output-dir	.pullstar	Directory for all artifacts
--github-token	—	Override/debug only. Prefer .env.

---

Agent Flow (Deterministic — No Sub-Agents)

The entire pipeline runs in the agent's main session. Use exec for Python scripts and do the LLM inference inline — the agent itself is the LLM. Never spawn sub-agents.

text

1. exec:    python run_brief.py --login <login> [flags]
2. read:    .pullstar/llm_input_<login>.json
3. write:   .pullstar/llm_output_<login>.json  (produce the brief inline as the LLM)
4. exec:    python scripts/agent_finalize_1on1.py --login <login>
5. read:    .pullstar/output_<login>.json       (quality gate: verify meaningful data)
6. (done — present the brief)

Why Inline

• Zero sub-agent overhead. No spawn latency, no polling, no completion-event complexity.
• Deterministic tool count. Exactly 5 tool calls: exec → read → write → exec → read.
• Faster end-to-end. All steps run sequentially in one session with no context-fork tax.
• The agent IS the LLM. Creating a sub-agent to call the same model for inference adds nothing.

Quality Gate

After step 4, read output_<login>.json and verify the brief has meaningful data. If total_score is 0 or the brief contains phrases like "no activity" / "no contributions" / "no PRs merged" / "insufficient data", respond with a graceful fallback message instead of presenting an empty brief.

---

Agent JSON Contract

Input (from run_brief.py)

File: .pullstar/llm_input_{login}.json

Field	Type	Description
system	string	System prompt with instructions
user	string	User message with engineer data and scores
metadata	object	Version, timestamps, total score, confidence

Output (from agent)

File: .pullstar/llm_output_{login}.json

json

{
  "version":        "1.0",
  "engineer_login": "jsmith",
  "brief":          "## Quick Summary\n..."
}

Requirements:

• Valid JSON
• brief must be a non-empty markdown string
• Plain text is also accepted — the full file content will be used as the brief

---

Brief Output Format

The final brief (output_{login}.json) contains a markdown document with six sections:

Section	Content
Quick Summary	2–3 sentences, lead with concrete numbers
Highlights	2–4 bullets, one data point each
Areas to Explore	2–3 open-ended questions for the 1-on-1
Patterns Worth Noting	1–3 factual behavioral observations
Score Summary	Markdown table — Dimension / Score / Confidence / Signal. Emoji encouraged in Confidence column.
Suggested Focus	One paragraph on the most useful 1-on-1 theme

Example Score Summary table:

Dimension	Score	Confidence	Signal
Velocity	16/20	✅ High	10 PRs merged, 3 active weeks
PR Quality	14/20	✅ High	Avg 320 lines, 2 large PRs flagged
Review Participation	8/20	⚠️ Medium	3 reviews given in window
Collaboration	12/20	✅ High	4 repos, 3 reviewers per PR avg
Consistency	10/20	🔴 Low	1 of 3 weeks inactive

---

Artifacts

All artifacts are written to .pullstar/ (gitignored, never committed).

File	Written by	Sent to AI?
ingest_{login}.json	ingest.py	❌ No
score_{login}.json	score.py	❌ No
llm_input_{login}.json	agent_prepare_1on1.py	✅ Yes
llm_output_{login}.json	Agent	❌ No
output_{login}.json	agent_finalize_1on1.py	❌ No

---

Troubleshooting

"GitHub rejected the PR search query (422)" Use a classic PAT — fine-grained PATs cannot search across arbitrary users.

"GitHub rate limit hit" Authenticated: 5000 req/hr. Unauthenticated: 60 req/hr. Set GITHUB_TOKEN.

Slow ingestion on high-activity users Use --max-results 10 to cap iteration. Default is 20.

GraphQL errors Use --api-mode rest to fall back to the legacy REST API.

---

For Agent Developers

Deterministic Pattern (Mandatory)

The brief pipeline is fully deterministic. There is exactly one correct execution path:

text

exec(run_brief.py) → read(llm_input) → write(llm_output) → exec(agent_finalize) → read(output/quality gate)

❌ Never spawn sub-agents for this pipeline. The agent itself performs the LLM inference step — delegating to a sub-agent is redundant, adds latency, and creates thrash. The pipeline completes in 5 tool calls. If you're tempted to spawn a sub-agent, ask yourself: "Am I running a Python script or doing LLM inference?" If the answer is "Python script," use exec. If the answer is "LLM inference," do it inline.

Recovery: If run_brief.py exits non-zero, the GitHub user likely doesn't exist or the token is invalid. Respond with the graceful fallback message; do not retry or spawn alternative paths.

---

License

MIT — See source repository for full license text.