MCMC project completion forecast
Forecast live task and project completion with a censored Bayesian lognormal model, MCMC uncertainty, dependencies, and finite parallelism.
What it's for
The date a team gives you is a single number. This gives you the distribution behind it — including the tasks that haven't finished yet, which a simple average quietly throws away.
Turns the site's lognormal forecasting claim into a posterior live-project forecast with convergence diagnostics.
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.
| Field | Type | Role | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| burn_in | integer ≥ 50 | Numerical control | Optional |
| deadline_days | number ≥ 0 | Your calibration | Optional |
| draws | integer ≥ 50 | Numerical control | Optional |
| historical_tasks | array of objects (5 fields) ≥ 5 items | Evidence | Yes |
| n_chains | integer ≥ 2 | Numerical control | Optional |
| open_tasks | array of objects (6 fields) | Evidence | Yes |
| parallel_workers | integer ≥ 1 | Your calibration | Optional |
| seed | integer | Numerical control | Optional |
| thin | integer ≥ 1 | Numerical control | Optional |
Each open_tasks
record
| Field | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|
| age_days | number (≥ 0) | Optional |
| depends_on | array of string | Optional |
| id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| size | number (≥ 0) | Optional |
| task_type | string (non-empty) | Optional |
| team | string (non-empty) | Optional |
{
"burn_in": 50,
"deadline_days": 14,
"draws": 50,
"historical_tasks": [
{
"duration_days": 2,
"size": 1,
"team": "core"
},
{
"duration_days": 3,
"size": 2,
"team": "core"
},
{
"duration_days": 4,
"size": 3,
"team": "core"
},
{
"duration_days": 5,
"size": 5,
"team": "core"
},
{
"duration_days": 2.5,
"size": 2,
"team": "core"
},
{
"duration_days": 6,
"size": 6,
"team": "core"
}
],
"n_chains": 2,
"open_tasks": [
{
"age_days": 2,
"id": "api",
"size": 5,
"team": "core"
}, Truncated for display — the full payload is 57 lines.
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.
{
"deadline_days": 14,
"mcmc": {
"acceptance_rates": [
0.4,
0.44
],
"burn_in": 50,
"chains": 2,
"converged": false,
"draws_per_chain": 50,
"max_rhat": 2.1768,
"min_effective_sample_size": 8.3,
"parameter_posterior_means": {
"intercept": 1.3093,
"log1p_size_z": 0.3662,
"log_sigma": -2.0957
},
"thin": 1
},
"method": "mcmc_project_completion_v1",
"model": {
"completed_observations": 6,
"family": "bayesian_lognormal_aft",
"parallel_workers": 2,
"posterior_predictive_draws": 1000,
"right_censored_observations": 1
},
"probability_complete_by_deadline": 1,
"project_remaining_days": {
"p10": 5.921,
"p50": 7.049,
"p75": 7.647,
"p90": 8.222
},
"task_forecasts": [
{
"age_conditioned": true,
"id": "api",
"remaining_days": {
"p10": 2.456,
"p50": 3.368,
"p75": 3.825,
"p90": 4.269 Truncated for display — the full payload is 61 lines.
How it works
Sequential Bayesian & bandits — Learn while deciding — update beliefs as evidence arrives and choose where the next unit of effort is worth spending.
- 1 Forecast live task and project completion with a censored Bayesian lognormal model, MCMC uncertainty, dependencies, and finite parallelism.
- 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.
Assumptions & guardrails
- The likelihood or reward model, prior support, action logging, delayed outcomes, and any stationarity assumptions match the deployment process.
- Posterior probability and adaptive selection are model-conditional; they are not substitutes for randomized propensities or guaranteed safety.
Minimum evidence
- historical_tasks: at least 5 rows/items
- open_tasks: required and organization-defined
How to validate it
Use chronological train/calibration/test windows, compare proper scores and decision value with a simple baseline, and recalibrate only from outcomes resolved after prediction time.
Calibrating it to your org
Same for everyone
The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.
Specific to you
- metric/outcome definitions, entity grain, observation window, costs, thresholds, priors, and constraints represented by the function inputs
Calibration workflow
- 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
- 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 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
- 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 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
- 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": "forecast live task and project completion" }
→ finds "mcmc_project_completion_forecast"
gitrevio_capability_describe
{ "capability_id": "mcmc_project_completion_forecast" }
→ returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page
gitrevio_capability_run
{ "capability_id": "mcmc_project_completion_forecast", "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
Fit team behavior regime HMM
Learn persistent privacy-safe team operating regimes and transitions with a Gaussian hidden Markov model.
Optimize workforce policy tree
Optimize staged team/role capacity actions through uncertain demand by Monte Carlo backward induction.
Simulate contextual thompson bandit
Simulate Bayesian contextual Thompson sampling and quantify intervention reward, regret, and policy uncertainty.
Audit commercial technical commitment integrity
Audit signed commercial promises against explicitly allocated technical scope, dependency order, funded capacity, acceptance criteria and evidence; expose orphan scope, double allocation, cycles, late plans and maximum contractual penalty without interpreting legal rights from engineering activity.
Audit decision execution fidelity
Audit whether approved decisions actually became verified implementation at the promised aggregate-unit and component grain, with whole-unit bootstrap uncertainty and simultaneous gates for fidelity, overdue scope, unverifiable evidence, exceptions and critical gaps.
Audit KPI threshold bunching
Detect a post-target excess concentration immediately above a governed KPI threshold: compare within-unit pre/post local mass and above-versus-below mirror asymmetry, bootstrap whole units, report density bins and a smoothed log-density jump, and explicitly refuse to equate bunching with individual gaming or intent.