Navigara
Microsoft

semantic-kernel — Engineering Performance

12 engineers all time · Jan 2025 – Sep 2026 · built 2026-09-08 · GitHub

Performance snapshot

Today's rolling 90-day reading for semantic-kernel, compared with the start of the series. Pick a window to move that comparison point.

Avg. perf / dev / mo

−76.6%

1.86 → 0.44 ETV

Active engineers

−58.3%

12.0 → 5.0

Features

−23.5pp

41.9% → 18.4%

vs. Microsoft

0.08x

1.3x → 0.08x · −92% below

semantic-kernel vs. Microsoft

Per-engineer ETV for semantic-kernel against Microsoft as a whole. Both lines are 90-day rolling averages scaled to a 30-day month, so they share one axis and can be read against each other at any point. Pick a window to zoom the chart to it.

semantic-kernel
0.44ETV / dev / mo
−0.16 (−26.7%) past 90d
Microsoft
5.22ETV / dev / mo
+2.12 (+68.4%) past 90d

Performance Composition

Each month's output split by type of work: Features (new value), Maintenance (sustaining systems), Tests, Docs, and Fixes (rework). The yellow line is output per engineer, so when it rises each engineer is delivering more, whatever the team size did. Unit: Engineering Throughput Value (ETV).

Engineering capacity

Effective engineers behind semantic-kernel, against its pre-AI baseline. Each subject has its own: semantic-kernel's is 1.86 ETV / dev / mo, its first reading in April 2025. Per-engineer ETV divided by that gives a capacity multiple, and that multiple applied to the engineers active in the trailing 90 days turns it into engineer-equivalents. The line is the real headcount, so the gap between line and area is what the leverage is worth. Because each baseline is its own, every subject opens at 1.0x on its first day: multiples measure improvement and are not comparable between subjects.

Effective engineers
1engineer-equivalents
−4 engineers above real headcount
Real engineers
5engineers
active in the trailing 90 days
Capacity vs pre-AI
0.2x
per engineer, vs 1.86 pre-AI

Knowledge concentration

How dependent is this repo on a small number of engineers? Higher top-1 share = higher key-person risk.

Top 1
25.3 %
Top 3
49.7 %
Top 5
67.7 %

Evan Mattson owns 25.3 % of commits.

Behind the numbers

Written summary of the work completed each month.

No monthly reports available yet.

Top engineers

Most impactful commits

Top 10 by ETV in the all-time window.