User Experience Analysis Report - February 3, 2026

[github-actions[bot]]

User Experience Analysis Report - 2026-02-03

Executive Summary

Today's targeted analysis focused on:

• 2 documentation files (getting-started-mcp.md, errors.md)
• 2 workflow message configurations (delight.md, issue-triage-agent.md, security-review.md)
• 2 validation files (engine_validation.go, permissions_validation.go)

Overall Quality: ⚠️ Needs Minor Work - The repository demonstrates strong professional quality in most areas, with opportunities for targeted single-file improvements that enhance clarity and reduce user friction.

Key Finding: Documentation shows excellent structure and completeness, but error messages in validation code could benefit from more actionable guidance and consistent formatting across files.

---

Quality Highlights ✅

The analysis identified several aspects demonstrating strong enterprise user experience:

Highlight 1: Comprehensive Error Documentation

• File: docs/src/content/docs/troubleshooting/errors.md
• What works well:
  • Exceptional organization with lifecycle-based error categorization (Schema Validation → Compilation → Runtime)
  • Progressive disclosure using collapsible sections for complex error details
  • Consistent error message format with cause, solution, and code examples
  • Practical troubleshooting tips section at the end
  • Effective use of callouts (TIP, CAUTION) to highlight important information
• Quote/Reference: The "Typo Detection" tip (lines 14-16) provides exceptional user value by explaining the fuzzy matching feature, reducing frustration from simple typos.

Highlight 2: Well-Structured MCP Guide

• File: docs/src/content/docs/guides/getting-started-mcp.md
• What works well:
  • Clear progression from "What is MCP?" to practical implementation
  • Three practical examples showing increasing complexity (basic, multi-service, PR review)
  • Helpful decision-making tables (Common toolset combinations, Operating Modes)
  • Explicit "Next Steps" section with relevant links
  • Professional tone balancing accessibility with technical precision

---

Improvement Opportunities 💡

High Priority

Opportunity 1: Enhance Error Message Consistency in Engine Validation - Single File Improvement

File to Modify: pkg/workflow/engine_validation.go

Current Experience

Lines 69 and 94 show inconsistent error message formatting. Line 69 provides a helpful example, but the format uses inline text without structured guidance. Line 94's multi-engine error message is verbose and doesn't follow a consistent pattern.

Quality Issue

Design Principle: Clarity and Precision, Professional Communication

Currently, error messages mix different formatting styles:

• Line 69: "invalid engine: %s. Valid engines are: copilot, claude, codex, custom. Example: engine: copilot"
• Line 94: "multiple engine fields found (%d engine specifications detected). Only one engine field is allowed across the main workflow and all included files. Remove duplicate engine specifications to keep only one. Example: engine: copilot"

This inconsistency creates cognitive load for users who need to parse different message structures to find the actionable information.

Proposed Improvement

Standardize error messages using a consistent three-part structure: Problem Statement → Context → Solution with Example.

Before (Lines 69-70):

return fmt.Errorf("invalid engine: %s. Valid engines are: copilot, claude, codex, custom. Example: engine: copilot", engineID)

After:

return fmt.Errorf("invalid engine '%s' is not recognized\n\nSupported engines:\n  - copilot\n  - claude\n  - codex\n  - custom\n\nExample:\nengine: copilot", engineID)

Before (Lines 94-95):

return "", fmt.Errorf("multiple engine fields found (%d engine specifications detected). Only one engine field is allowed across the main workflow and all included files. Remove duplicate engine specifications to keep only one. Example: engine: copilot", len(allEngines))

After:

return "", fmt.Errorf("multiple engine specifications detected (%d found)\n\nOnly one engine field is allowed across the main workflow and all included files.\n\nTo fix:\n  1. Review your main workflow file and all imports\n  2. Remove duplicate 'engine:' fields\n  3. Keep only one engine specification\n\nExample:\nengine: copilot", len(allEngines))

Why This Matters

• User Impact: Engineers encountering engine configuration errors get structured, scannable guidance instead of parsing long sentences
• Quality Factor: Enhances Professional Communication and Efficiency and Productivity
• Frequency: Engine configuration is a fundamental workflow setup step encountered by all users

Success Criteria

• Changes made to pkg/workflow/engine_validation.go only
• All error messages in the file follow the three-part structure (Problem → Context → Solution)
• Error messages are easier to scan with newlines separating sections
• Quality rating improves from ⚠️ to ✅

Scope Constraint

• Single file only: pkg/workflow/engine_validation.go
• No changes to other validation files required
• Can be completed independently

---

Opportunity 2: Add Progressive Disclosure to Workflow Messages - Single File Improvement

File to Modify: .github/workflows/security-review.md

Current Experience

Lines 28-32 define workflow messages with emojis and basic status information. However, the messages don't take advantage of progressive disclosure patterns that would reduce noise in comment threads while maintaining full context.

Current message format (line 30):

run-started: "🔍 [{workflow_name}]({run_url}) is analyzing this {event_type} for security implications..."

Quality Issue

Design Principle: Efficiency and Productivity, Professional Communication

The current messages provide context inline but don't use the reporting guidelines that the workflow itself recommends (see lines 35-62 showing proper progressive disclosure for review comments). This creates inconsistency between what the workflow produces and what it recommends.

Proposed Improvement

Align workflow status messages with the progressive disclosure pattern used in the workflow's own output, keeping critical information visible while collapsing details.

Before (Lines 28-32):

safe-outputs:
  add-comment:
    max: 1
  create-pull-request-review-comment:
    max: 10
    side: "RIGHT"
  messages:
    footer: "> 🔒 *Security review by [{workflow_name}]({run_url})*"
    run-started: "🔍 [{workflow_name}]({run_url}) is analyzing this {event_type} for security implications..."
    run-success: "🔒 [{workflow_name}]({run_url}) completed the security review."
    run-failure: "⚠️ [{workflow_name}]({run_url}) {status} during security review."

After:

safe-outputs:
  add-comment:
    max: 1
  create-pull-request-review-comment:
    max: 10
    side: "RIGHT"
  messages:
    footer: "> 🔒 *Security review by [{workflow_name}]({run_url})*"
    run-started: "🔍 Security review started for {event_type}\n\n**Status**: Analyzing changes for security implications\n\n<details>\n<summary><b>View Analysis Details</b></summary>\n\nThe security agent is checking for:\n- Network boundary changes\n- Permission escalations\n- Sandbox configuration modifications\n- Tool and MCP server additions\n\n**Workflow run**: [{workflow_name}]({run_url})\n</details>"
    run-success: "✅ Security review complete\n\n**Result**: No critical security concerns identified\n\n**References**: [Review run §{run_id}]({run_url})"
    run-failure: "⚠️ Security review {status}\n\n**Status**: The security analysis was interrupted\n\nPlease review the workflow logs for details: [{workflow_name}]({run_url})"

Why This Matters

• User Impact: PR authors get immediate status without scrolling through verbose messages; full context available on demand
• Quality Factor: Enhances Efficiency and Productivity and Professional Communication
• Frequency: Every security review invocation on PRs (high-traffic workflow)

Success Criteria

• Changes made to .github/workflows/security-review.md only
• Messages use h3 headers and progressive disclosure (details tags)
• Critical information visible without expansion
• Consistent with shared/reporting.md guidelines referenced in workflow
• Quality rating improves from ⚠️ to ✅

Scope Constraint

• Single file only: .github/workflows/security-review.md
• No changes to other workflow files required
• Can be completed independently

---

Files Reviewed

Documentation

• docs/src/content/docs/guides/getting-started-mcp.md - Rating: ✅ Professional
• docs/src/content/docs/troubleshooting/errors.md - Rating: ✅ Professional

Workflow Messages

• .github/workflows/delight.md - Rating: ✅ Professional
• .github/workflows/issue-triage-agent.md - Rating: ✅ Professional
• .github/workflows/security-review.md - Rating: ⚠️ Needs Minor Work

Validation Code

• pkg/workflow/engine_validation.go - Rating: ⚠️ Needs Minor Work
• pkg/workflow/permissions_validation.go - Rating: ✅ Professional

---

Metrics

• Files Analyzed: 7
• Quality Distribution:
  • ✅ Professional: 5 (71%)
  • ⚠️ Needs Minor Work: 2 (29%)
  • ❌ Needs Significant Work: 0 (0%)

Trend Analysis: The repository demonstrates strong commitment to enterprise-quality user experience. The identified opportunities are surgical improvements that will enhance an already solid foundation.

---

References

• Workflow run §21648344551

AI generated by Delight

• expires on Feb 10, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

[github-actions[bot]]

This discussion was automatically closed because it expired on 2026-02-10T21:27:19.467Z.

Closed by Workflow