The signal reference
Exactly what Sonar watches — and what it doesn’t.
Seventeen patterns. Each one defined precisely: what data feeds it, what the pattern suggests, and what Sonar explicitly does not conclude from it. A signal is a prompt for a conversation — not a diagnosis.
What Sonar reads
Metadata only. Never message content.
Sonar reads collaboration metadata — the when, who, and how-often of work patterns. It never reads what anyone wrote or said. This is enforced at the ingestion layer, not just policy.
Slack / Teams
Reads
Who messaged whom, timestamps, channel names, reaction counts, thread depth
Never reads
Message text, DM content, file names, call content
GitHub / GitLab
Reads
PR open/close times, review events, commit timestamps, branch names
Never reads
Code content, commit messages, PR descriptions, comments
Calendar
Reads
Meeting duration, attendee count, calendar density, time-of-day patterns
Never reads
Meeting titles, agenda content, notes, attendee names
Current integrations and every one we add in future follow the same rule. Full security details →
CONTACT TRACKING · Individuals
Behavior change in one person against their own normal.
01OverloadedRunning too hot for too long.
How it shows up in the data
- Online past 11pm six nights running
- Meeting load doubled vs. their normal week
- Response time on Slack creeping up day over day
- Uninterrupted work time collapsing — no gaps left in the calendar
What this signal does not mean
Not an assessment of output quality. Not a performance flag. Nothing is sent to HR. Sonar identifies a load pattern — what caused it and whether it's a problem is a question only a conversation can answer.
Why it matters
Burnout is the longest-leading signal we track. By the time someone hands in notice, the calendar pattern that predicted it was usually visible six weeks earlier. Catching it at week one means a workload conversation; catching it at week six means a backfill.
How to open it
Don't lead with the pattern. Lead with the person. "How are you holding up?" lands differently than "I noticed your calendar has been packed." Use the data to know who to ask, not what to say.
02Checking outPulling away over a longer window.
How it shows up in the data
- Slack activity sharply down and staying down for two weeks straight
- Code-review participation falling, not just shipping
- Less initiation in channels — replies but no new threads
- Calendar gaps where there used to be 1:1s with peers
What this signal does not mean
Not evidence of poor attitude or disengagement from the job. A drop in communication pattern could mean a personal situation, a focused sprint, or dissatisfaction — Sonar can't tell which. No flag goes on their record.
Why it matters
Different from a bad week. Checking out is a sustained shift — the person is still on the team but the connection is gone. It often precedes a quiet job search by 30–60 days.
How to open it
An honest 1:1 — not a performance conversation. Ask what they're excited about right now. The answer (or the silence) is the data.
03Gone quietOut of the pattern, suddenly.
How it shows up in the data
- No messages in three days where they normally send a dozen
- No PR reviews in five days where they normally review daily
- Calendar mostly clear — no meetings booked, no holds
- No PTO marked
What this signal does not mean
Could be illness, focused work, a personal matter, or just a quieter week. Sonar flags that it's unusual for this specific person — it does not assume why. No automatic escalation happens.
Why it matters
Sometimes it's a sick kid. Sometimes it's a deadline focus mode. Sometimes it's something they want to talk about but haven't found the moment. The signal isn't the silence itself — it's that the silence is unusual for them.
How to open it
Direct check-in, not a Slack message. Five minutes, in person or on a call. "Hey — haven't seen you around this week, everything OK?"
04StalledWork that's been sitting for too long.
How it shows up in the data
- PR sitting open for over a week with no review activity
- Reviewer hasn't replied; author has moved on to other work
- Linear / Jira ticket in the same status for far too long
- Comments thread has gone cold mid-discussion
What this signal does not mean
Not a reflection on the author or the reviewer. Stalled work is almost always a queue or priority problem, not a person one. No individual gets flagged as underperforming.
Why it matters
This is the cheapest signal to act on. A blocked PR is rarely a person problem — it's a queue problem. Five minutes of unblocking saves a week of frustration on both sides.
How to open it
Don't ask the author. Go to the reviewer: "Anything I can do to help you get to PR #482?" Most of the time the answer is "oh — I forgot."
05RisingWorth saying out loud.
How it shows up in the data
- Code-review throughput up sharply this sprint — well above their own normal
- Unblocking other people's work (review turnaround under 2h)
- Picking up larger scopes than their level suggests
- Mentoring quietly — answering questions in #help channels
What this signal does not mean
Not a promotion recommendation or a compensation trigger. Sonar surfaces a pattern worth recognizing — it doesn't make any organizational decision for you.
Why it matters
Recognition that's specific lands; recognition that's generic doesn't. The biggest reason quiet stars leave is they think nobody noticed. Sonar's job here is to make sure you noticed before they did.
How to open it
Specific, public, this week. "Priya's review turnaround on the auth migration was 30 minutes when the team average was three days — that unblocked six PRs." Not at next quarter's review.
PATTERN ANALYSIS · Team & Process
Pair-, codebase-, and review-level patterns the team's own metrics miss.
01Collaboration riftTwo people who used to work closely have gone to zero interaction.
How it shows up in the data
- Two engineers who cross-reviewed each other weekly now have zero interactions for 21+ days
- DM volume between two people dropped to zero after being daily
- One person consistently absent from threads the other initiates
- Collaborative commit patterns between the two have stopped entirely
What this signal does not mean
Not proof of a conflict or a relationship problem. Two people's collaboration patterns may have naturally diverged as work changed. Sonar identifies the absence; only a conversation determines what it means.
Why it matters
Relationship problems between engineers rarely surface in 1:1s. People don't volunteer that they've stopped talking to a colleague — they just quietly stop collaborating. Sonar detects the absence before you notice the slowdown in delivery.
How to open it
Don't bring up the other person by name. Start with context: "I've noticed your work on X has been more independent lately — is there anything blocking the collaboration there?"
02Review qualityLarge PR, approved in 90 seconds, zero comments. That's not a review.
How it shows up in the data
- PR with 400+ line diff approved in under 2 minutes
- Approval with zero comments and zero suggestions
- Same reviewer approving every PR this sprint in under 3 minutes
- Reviewer was also the author's direct collaborator on the same branch
What this signal does not mean
Not an accusation of negligence. Fast approvals often mean an overwhelmed reviewer, not a careless one. Sonar flags the pattern — not the intent.
Why it matters
Rubber-stamp reviews don't protect code quality — they just create the audit trail that looks like a review happened. This signal catches two things at once: an overwhelmed reviewer who doesn't have time to read what they're approving, and a code quality risk the team won't find until production.
How to open it
Don't accuse. Ask about load. "You've been reviewing a lot this sprint — are you getting enough time to actually read through them, or is it getting squeezed?"
03Invisible carrierReviewing everyone's PRs, answering every blocker — while their own output looks flat.
How it shows up in the data
- Reviewing far more PRs than any other team member, week after week
- First or only response on the majority of team help requests in shared channels
- Own code output down while carrying the team's unblocking workload
- Answering questions in #help channels faster than anyone else, every day
What this signal does not mean
Not a performance problem. This person's own output may look flat because they're spending time unblocking others — that's a contribution, not a deficiency. Nothing here implies underperformance.
Why it matters
The invisible carrier is the person your team's velocity depends on — and the person most likely to burn out without anyone noticing because their own output metrics look flat. They're not underperforming. They're paying a hidden tax that doesn't show up in any dashboard.
How to open it
Acknowledge the contribution before anything else. "I've been looking at how the team has been unblocking each other — you're carrying a lot of it. I want to make sure that's recognized, and also make sure it's sustainable for you."
04Bus factorOne person owns the majority of a critical service. If they leave, production is at risk.
How it shows up in the data
- One engineer holds the overwhelming majority of commits to a critical service
- No other team member has reviewed or touched that code in months
- No documentation commits from anyone other than the sole owner
- That engineer is also showing Overloaded or Checking Out signals
What this signal does not mean
Not a criticism of the codebase owner. Knowledge concentration usually results from good work over time, not gatekeeping. Sonar flags it as an org risk, not an individual failing.
Why it matters
Bus factor isn't a people problem — it's a risk problem. It becomes urgent the moment the owner shows any sign of departure risk. Sonar flags the combination: concentrated ownership plus behavioral warning signals in the same person.
How to open it
Frame it as team resilience, not criticism. "I want to make sure we're spreading knowledge on the payments service — not because anything is wrong, but because I don't want you to be the only person who can work on it."
05Scope driftA branch with 40+ commits and no PR. Something grew beyond its original scope.
How it shows up in the data
- Branch with 40+ commits over 12+ days and no open PR
- Commit messages shifting topic mid-branch — feature to refactor to unrelated fix
- No updates in the associated Linear or Jira ticket for 10+ days
- Author's PR output has dropped to zero while this branch stays open
What this signal does not mean
Not an assumption of wasted effort or poor discipline. A long-running branch often means an engineer doing more than asked. Sonar flags that it hasn't reached a review gate — it makes no judgment about the work inside.
Why it matters
Scope drift is almost always well-intentioned — an engineer who found real problems and kept fixing them. But the longer it runs, the harder it is to review, the harder it is to reverse, and the more likely it lands in production as a single ungovernable change.
How to open it
Come in curious, not corrective. "Hey, I can see you've been deep in that branch for a while — what's it turning into? I want to make sure we get eyes on it before it gets too big to review in one sitting."
BEARING DATA · You as a manager
A mirror — patterns in how you engage your reports. Private to you.
01Attention gapYou respond 3× faster to some reports than others. You probably don't know.
How it shows up in the data
- You reply to one report in minutes, to another in hours — and the gap has been steady for weeks
- 1:1 duration with one report averages 48 minutes; with another, 18 minutes
- One report initiates almost all their interactions with you; another never has to
- Meeting rescheduling rate significantly higher for some reports than others
What this signal does not mean
Never shared with your reports. Private to you only. Not a score — a mirror. No one at Sonar reviews it. No one else in your org sees it.
Why it matters
This is usually unconscious. Affinity bias in manager attention is one of the most consistent patterns in employee attrition research — people who feel less visible to their manager start looking elsewhere. Sonar makes the pattern visible so you can correct it before someone notices it for you.
How to open it
This signal is for you, not a conversation with your report. Use it as a self-audit. Review the pattern, adjust deliberately, and notice whether the gap closes over the next 30 days.
02Credit gapHigh output, no recognition. Three weeks. They're starting to feel invisible.
How it shows up in the data
- High output, high PR throughput — zero @mentions or public acknowledgment for weeks
- Not recognized in sprint retros, standups, or shared channels despite measurable output
- Previously recognized regularly — recognition dropped off sharply
- Rising signal active (output up) but no corresponding acknowledgment from anyone
What this signal does not mean
This person didn't file a complaint. Sonar read their output pattern, not their feelings. They may not consciously feel overlooked yet — the signal exists so you act before they do.
Why it matters
The quietest exits are often the most preventable. High-output engineers who feel invisible don't complain — they update their LinkedIn. Specific, timely recognition is the cheapest retention tool available to a manager, and it's the one most likely to be delayed until a quarterly review when it's already too late.
How to open it
Public, specific, this week — not at next quarter's review. Name the work. "Devon shipped the data pipeline rewrite solo and kept the team unblocked through the whole sprint. That's not invisible to me." Say it in the channel where the work happened.
EXECORG LAYER · Executive signals
Patterns only visible from above. The named manager never sees these — you do.
The named manager never sees these flags. Only their skip-level does. Available on the Executive tier.
01Manager healthOne of your managers is showing the same burnout patterns their reports show — and they won't see this flag themselves.
How it shows up in the data
- Manager's own meeting load up sharply while their team's output is slipping
- Response time on their team's blockers stretching — at the EM level, not the IC level
- No 1:1s logged with any direct report in 10+ days
- After-hours work spiking in the same week team signals are degrading
What this signal does not mean
Never visible to the manager it describes. Not used for performance evaluation — ever. The signal's only purpose is to prompt the manager's manager to offer support before it becomes a crisis.
Why it matters
Managers rarely ask for help. They absorb pressure until they can't. By the time a manager tells you they're overwhelmed, they've been drowning for four weeks. This signal fires only at your level — the manager doesn't see it. Caught early, it's a workload conversation. Caught late, it's a resignation.
How to open it
"I want to check in on how you're doing, not just your team. What are you finding hardest right now?" The goal is reducing their load, not evaluating their performance.
02Cross-team frictionTwo teams that ship together have gone quiet with each other. No single manager can see this — you can.
How it shows up in the data
- Inter-team Slack thread volume dropped sharply between two teams who coordinate daily
- Cross-team PR review participation near zero where it was consistent for months
- Shared tickets aging with neither team touching them
- No joint meeting scheduled in two weeks where there was one every week
What this signal does not mean
Not attributed to either team's fault. Cross-team friction is almost always structural before it's personal — changing priorities, unclear ownership, shifting roadmaps. Sonar doesn't assign blame.
Why it matters
Each EM sees their own team. Neither sees the gap between them. Cross-team friction is the delivery risk that lives between org charts — the thing that falls through every individual manager's blind spot. Sonar watches the collaboration graph across team boundaries. The breakdown usually shows up in delivery four to six weeks later.
How to open it
Get both EMs in a room before you raise it with either one separately. "I want to talk about the handoff between the two teams — I've noticed the coordination has thinned out. What's creating the friction?"
03Onboarding driftA new hire is six weeks in and still on the periphery. They're saying they're fine. The data says otherwise.
How it shows up in the data
- Collaboration graph at week 6 looks like week 1 — few connections, mostly large all-hands channels
- No PR reviews submitted or received from teammates they'd be expected to pair with
- Calendar: mandatory syncs only, no ad-hoc conversations with peers
- Slack participation limited to replies, no thread initiation with immediate team
What this signal does not mean
Not a verdict on the new hire's performance or attitude. Integration pace varies enormously by team and role. Sonar flags that the connection pattern looks like week one — not why.
Why it matters
The first 90 days determine whether a hire stays past 18 months. A new hire who hasn't integrated by week 6 isn't going to tell you — they'll say 'it's going great' in the 1:1 because they want to look like they're handling it. The cost of a failed hire is the recruiting fee plus six months of ramp — that's $30–60K before anyone admits the problem. Sonar catches the pattern before the hire decides to quietly look elsewhere.
How to open it
Don't raise this with the new hire directly — it will read as surveillance. Raise it with their manager: "How's the integration going for [name]? Not the work — the team connections. Who are they spending time with?" That question usually surfaces the gap.
04Stretch candidateSomeone on one of your teams has been operating above their level for a month. No one has said anything publicly. They're updating their LinkedIn.
How it shows up in the data
- Consistently unblocking engineers at their level and above — not just once
- Scoping and owning work that maps to the next job level, not their current one
- Reviewing PRs from engineers more senior than them, comments taken seriously
- No corresponding public recognition or title conversation visible in the data
What this signal does not mean
Not a commitment to promote or a compensation trigger. Sonar prompts a conversation that should already be happening — it doesn't make the organizational decision.
Why it matters
High performers who feel invisible don't complain. They get recruited away by someone who will give them the title and the scope they've already earned. The window between 'feeling undervalued' and 'accepting an offer' is often 30–60 days — and the departure is always a surprise to the manager. It shouldn't be.
How to open it
Surface this to the EM, not directly to the engineer. "I want to talk about [name] — I've been watching their contribution and I think we have a promotion conversation to have. What would it take to move this forward this quarter?"
05Team retention riskOne of your teams has had four or more signals fire in three weeks with no resolution. The team's brief feedback loop has gone cold. This is a team-level risk, not a person-level one.
How it shows up in the data
- Multiple hot signals (Overloaded, Checking Out, Invisible Carrier) firing on the same team within a short window
- Manager has not logged any brief feedback in 2+ weeks — signals are firing but not being acted on
- Team collaboration volume down broadly — not one person, the whole team pulling inward
- No positive signals (Rising, recognition events) offsetting the hot ones
What this signal does not mean
Not a blame signal toward the EM. Multi-signal team deterioration almost always reflects external pressure, org factors, or unclear priorities — not management failure. Sonar surfaces the pattern so support can flow toward it.
Why it matters
Individual signals tell you about individuals. But when a whole team goes quiet, when the invisible carrier is burning out while someone else is checking out, that's not a people problem — it's a team health crisis. The individual signals are each too small to panic about. In combination, on one team, in three weeks, they're a retention event in the making.
How to open it
This is a conversation with the EM, not the team. "I've been looking at the brief data for your team over the last few weeks and I want to understand what's going on. Not to audit you — I want to make sure you have what you need to stabilize things."
Ready when you are
Seventeen signals. One brief. Every weekday morning.
Twelve standard. Five executive-only that the named manager never sees. Connect your tools — the brief tells you who needs the conversation.
No card · Cancel any time