Skip to main content
Code Guide
DORA 2025 SPACE Framework 5-25 people Board Playbook

Pilot Your AI-Augmented Team

The metrics that actually matter when AI writes 70% of your code.

When Velocity Lies

When AI accelerates delivery, old benchmarks break. PRs per day goes up, which looks like progress, while masking quality and skill problems underneath. You need different sensors.

70–90%
AI-assisted code
Anthropic research, Aug 2025 ↗
DORA tiers
abandoned
DORA 2025 report ↗

4 Metric Categories

Each one covers a blind spot the others miss. Together they give you a complete picture.

Delivery Health

DORA

The baseline. Automate these first.

  • Deployment Frequency How often you ship to production
  • Lead Time for Changes Commit to production elapsed time
  • Change Failure Rate % of deploys causing incidents
  • MTTR Mean time to restore after failure

Quality Signal

Where AI hides its mistakes.

  • Bug Escape Rate Bugs found in prod per sprint
  • PR Review Comprehension % of PRs reviewed with genuine understanding
  • CI Speed P50/P90 Pipeline latency at median and 90th percentile

Product Impact

The layer most teams skip.

  • Time-to-Value Days from feature start to first user value
  • Feature Adoption (14-day) % of target users activating a feature within 2 weeks of release
  • CSAT on Key Features User satisfaction score on high-investment areas

Human Health

SPACE

What DORA doesn't see.

  • Developer Satisfaction Quarterly CSAT survey (5 questions, anonymous)
  • PR Review Time Avg hours from PR open to first review
  • Burnout Signals After-hours commits, PTO utilization, qualitative check-ins

Start Small, Scale Right

The right metrics depend on your team size. Don't track what you can't act on.

5-person team

  • Deployment Frequency
  • Cycle Time
  • Time-to-Value
  • Bugs in prod/month
  • Quarterly satisfaction
Recommended tooling GitHub Insights + spreadsheet
Full breakdown in guide →

25-person team

  • All 4 DORA (automated)
  • Cycle Time per squad
  • Bug Escape Rate
  • AI contribution %
  • Quarterly satisfaction
Recommended tooling LinearB or Faros.ai
Full breakdown in guide →

The 4-Question Test

For any metric you're considering tracking, run it through this checklist. Fewer than 3 "yes" answers? Drop it. It's noise, not signal.

1
Can you act on it in <2 weeks?
2
Does it explain WHY, not just WHAT?
3
Is it correlated to a business outcome?
4
Can it be measured automatically?
Rule: fewer than 3 yes answers means the metric is not worth tracking. Tracking too much costs attention, the one resource AI can't augment.

When Will This Actually Ship

A velocity-based point estimate is a guess wearing a suit. Monte Carlo forecasting runs your own cycle-time history through thousands of simulated iterations and hands back a range, not a single date pulled from an average.

March 12
Point estimate
Implies a certainty the data never had
Mar 3 – Mar 20
80% confidence range
What ActionableAgile or Nave actually compute
The catch: Monte Carlo forecasting is not a fix for an unstable delivery system. Nave's own documentation puts it plainly: "the sole requirement for Monte Carlo to work and give reliable answers is to use data produced by a predictable delivery system." An unpredictable team gets a wider range back, not a narrower one.

Reporting to a Board That Doubts You

When a board doubts delivery capacity after an estimate has slipped, adding more dashboards rarely fixes it. The doubt is almost always about trust, not about the number on the screen.

1
Diagnose first. No published study proves any tool repairs executive trust. A dashboard answers "how fast," not "will you slip again."
2
Bring scenarios, not a velocity chart. 2-3 named options, each with a timeline, a rework cost, and a business impact. That's a decision a board can actually make.
3
Cap strategic objectives. A detailed multi-quarter feature roadmap is a precision claim your delivery system can't back. A small set of objectives survives a slip better than a feature list does.
4
Track your commitment hit-rate. Separate committed scope from best-effort scope, then show, release after release, that committed scope ships as committed.
5
Align the room before the room. A plenary board meeting is the wrong venue for first-time alignment on a contentious number. Talk to members individually first.

Read the full framework in the guide

Covers implementation playbook, tooling comparison, anti-patterns, and worked examples for squads already using Claude Code daily.