Abhishek Kulkarni

81 of 100, ranked 4 of 12 people with a score, against a cohort median of 78. The bands are cut from this period's own distribution, not fixed thresholds: ≤ 78 is behind, ≥ 81 is leading, and this person is in the middle 40% of people with a score this period. With every component at the cohort median this person would score 82; they score 81. No single component moves the score by as much as a point; the position comes from the spread across all of them, not from one weak term. 2 of 6 components (completed work, review) could not be measured at all, so the remaining weights were rescaled — this score rests on 70% of the intended evidence.

A band compares this person to the 12 people who have a score in this window — nothing more. It is not a rating, it does not persist, and it moves when the cohort or the window moves.

Effect is a counterfactual, not a share: how many points this person’s score would move if that one component dropped to the cohort median for it. The effects sum to 81 − 82 = -1, where 82 is what this person would score with every one of their components at the cohort median. Negative rows are the reason the total sits where it does. A component with no data is withheld and the remaining weights are rescaled — it is never scored as zero, and it never counts against anyone.

Measured but deliberately not scored: 44.4 hours tracked, 3 commits, 2,419 lines changed, 23.6% activity. The first four measure motion rather than delivery and are trivially inflated. CI is excluded because it exists on a minority of repositories, so scoring it would rank people by which repository they work in. This score cannot see architecture, planning, mentoring, incident response or infrastructure work at all.

No pull requests opened or merged by this person in this window.