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
Example input
{
  "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.

Example output
{
  "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. 1 Forecast live task and project completion with a censored Bayesian lognormal model, MCMC uncertainty, dependencies, and finite parallelism.
  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.

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. 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": "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.

Markov & state-space control

Optimize workforce policy tree

Optimize staged team/role capacity actions through uncertain demand by Monte Carlo backward induction.

Constrained optimization

Simulate contextual thompson bandit

Simulate Bayesian contextual Thompson sampling and quantify intervention reward, regret, and policy uncertainty.

Sequential Bayesian & bandits

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.

Constrained optimization

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.

Statistical audit & measurement

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.

Statistical audit & measurement

See every tool in Delivery forecasting & commitments →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?

Request a free demo