Estimate coordination network percolation

What it's for

Shows where project, repository, service, or team structure becomes brittle before a reorganization, outage, or key-unit loss exposes it in production.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "edges": [
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-1",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-1",
      "strength": 1
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-2",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-2",
      "strength": 1
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-3",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-3",
      "strength": 1
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-4",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-4",
      "strength": 1
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-5",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-5",
      "strength": 1
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-6",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-6",
      "strength": 1
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery-edge-7",
      "node_a": "delivery-node-0",
      "node_b": "delivery-node-7",
      "strength": 1
    },

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "assumptions": [
    "Nodes are privacy-eligible teams, services, repositories, projects, or companies rather than people, and an observed edge represents a coordination path relevant to the decision epoch.",
    "Targeted removal follows static weighted degree; it is a stress test of structural concentration, not a prediction that any named unit will disappear.",
    "Connectivity treats every supplied positive-strength edge as traversable while strength ranks targeted removals; thresholded or directed dependencies require a governed alternative graph.",
    "Random-removal uncertainty is Monte Carlo uncertainty conditional on this observed graph and excludes missing-edge, identity-resolution, and future-rewiring uncertainty."
  ],
  "critical_nodes": [
    {
      "neighbors": 9,
      "node_id": "delivery-node-0",
      "weight": 1,
      "weighted_degree": 9
    },
    {
      "neighbors": 1,
      "node_id": "delivery-node-1",
      "weight": 1,
      "weighted_degree": 1
    },
    {
      "neighbors": 1,
      "node_id": "delivery-node-2",
      "weight": 1,
      "weighted_degree": 1
    },
    {
      "neighbors": 1,
      "node_id": "delivery-node-3",
      "weight": 1,
      "weighted_degree": 1
    },
    {
      "neighbors": 1,
      "node_id": "delivery-node-4",
      "weight": 1,
      "weighted_degree": 1
    },
    {
      "neighbors": 1,
      "node_id": "delivery-node-5",
      "weight": 1,
      "weighted_degree": 1
    },

How it works

Network & dependency analysis — Trace how load, failure and knowledge propagate through a graph of teams, services or components.

1. 1 Estimate organizational network tipping points under random versus targeted aggregate-unit loss, with weighted connected-component curves, Monte Carlo intervals, and structural-hub diagnostics.
2. 2 Evaluate the method-specific diagnostics and gates returned by the function, then abstain unless the declared decision clears them under locally governed thresholds.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "estimate organizational network tipping points under" }
  → finds "estimate_coordination_network_percolation"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "estimate_coordination_network_percolation" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "estimate_coordination_network_percolation", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Org design, incentives & decisions →