RAG Status Reporting: A Guide That Actually Helps (2026)

RAG status—Red, Amber, Green—is the most common way engineering leaders communicate project health to stakeholders. It's simple, visual, and universally understood. It's also frequently misused, gamed, and ultimately misleading. This guide covers how to use RAG status effectively for engineering reporting, and when to supplement it with actual metrics.

"A project that's Green-Green-Green for 8 weeks then suddenly Red is a reporting failure, not a project failure. The warning signs were there—the status hid them."

What is RAG Status?

RAG stands for Red, Amber, Green—a traffic light system for communicating project health at a glance. It originated in project management but has become standard in engineering reporting, especially for executive updates and steering committee meetings.

Some organizations add Blue (completed) and Gray(unknown/insufficient data). These are useful for portfolio views but aren't standard across all organizations.

Applying RAG to Engineering Projects

In engineering, RAG status typically applies to multiple dimensions of a project:

Common RAG Dimensions

Example: Engineering Status Report

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Project: Payment Processing v2.0                    │
│ Week: 12 of 16                                      │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Overall Status: 🟡 AMBER                            │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Schedule:     🟢 Green   │ 1 week ahead of plan    │
│ Scope:        🟢 Green   │ No changes this week    │
│ Quality:      🟡 Amber   │ Test coverage at 72%    │
│ Team Health:  🟡 Amber   │ 2 engineers on vacation │
│ Dependencies: 🟢 Green   │ API team on track       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Key Risks:                                          │
│ • Test coverage needs to reach 85% before release   │
│ • Team capacity reduced through end of month        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Actions:                                            │
│ • Prioritizing test coverage this sprint            │
│ • Delayed non-critical features to Q2               │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Problems with RAG Reporting

"Projects don't go from Green to Red overnight. They go from 'Green but actually Amber' to 'Amber but we said Green' to 'Red and everyone knew but nobody said.'"

RAG status has known failure modes. Understanding these helps you avoid them:

1. Watermelon Projects

A "watermelon" project is Green on the outside, Red on the inside. The status report says Green, but anyone working on the project knows it's in trouble. This happens when:

• Teams are afraid to report bad news
• There's pressure to maintain "Green" status
• The person reporting isn't close enough to the work
• Metrics aren't objective—just vibes

2. Status Inflation

When every project is Green, Green loses meaning. Teams learn that Amber means "you'll get asked hard questions" and Red means "you've failed," so they report Green until it's undeniably Red. The Amber zone—where action can still help— gets skipped entirely.

3. Subjectivity Without Calibration

What does "1-2 weeks behind" mean for Schedule Amber? Is it calendar weeks or sprint weeks? Behind the original estimate or the current plan? Without clear, agreed-upon thresholds, RAG becomes whatever the reporter feels like.

4. Lagging Indicators

By the time a project is clearly Red, it's often too late to fix. RAG status typically reflects what has already happened, not what's about to happen. Leading indicators—like increasing cycle time, declining test coverage, or review bottlenecks—warn you before the project status changes.

Setting Better RAG Thresholds

The fix for subjective RAG is objective thresholds. Define specific, measurable criteria for each status:

Schedule Thresholds (Example)

Quality Thresholds (Example)

Delivery Flow Thresholds (Example)

Using Leading Indicators

The best RAG reports combine lagging indicators (what happened) with leading indicators (what's likely to happen). Here's how:

Lagging vs. Leading Indicators

"Leading indicators are uncomfortable because they force you to admit problems before they're undeniable. That's exactly why they're valuable."

RAG Reporting Cadence

How often should you update RAG status? It depends on the audience:

The higher up the audience, the more RAG makes sense—executives don't need cycle time charts, they need "should I be worried?" The closer to the work, the more you should use actual metrics instead of traffic lights.

RAG Status Templates

Weekly Engineering Update Template

# Engineering Status - Week of [DATE]

## Overall Status: [🟢/🟡/🔴]

### Summary
[2-3 sentences on what happened this week]

### RAG by Dimension
| Dimension    | Status | Notes                          |
|--------------|--------|--------------------------------|
| Schedule     | 🟢     | On track for [milestone]       |
| Quality      | 🟡     | Test coverage at 74% (target 80%) |
| Team Health  | 🟢     | No concerns                    |
| Dependencies | 🟡     | Waiting on API team review     |

### Key Metrics (from CodePulse)
- Cycle Time: 32 hours (target: <48h) ✅
- Review Pickup: 3.2 hours (target: <4h) ✅
- PRs Merged: 24 (up from 18 last week)
- Review Coverage: 98%

### Risks & Blockers
1. [Risk 1] - Mitigation: [action]
2. [Risk 2] - Mitigation: [action]

### Next Week Focus
- [Priority 1]
- [Priority 2]

Steering Committee Template

# Project: [NAME] - Steering Committee Update

## Executive Summary
Overall: [🟢/🟡/🔴] | Previous: [🟢/🟡/🔴] | Trend: [↑/→/↓]

[One paragraph summary of project status]

## Status Dashboard
┌────────────────┬────────┬─────────────────────────┐
│ Dimension      │ Status │ Notes                   │
├────────────────┼────────┼─────────────────────────┤
│ Schedule       │ 🟢     │ Week 8 of 12            │
│ Budget         │ 🟢     │ 92% of allocation used  │
│ Scope          │ 🟡     │ 2 features descoped     │
│ Quality        │ 🟢     │ 0 P1 bugs open          │
│ Resources      │ 🟡     │ 1 backfill in progress  │
└────────────────┴────────┴─────────────────────────┘

## Decisions Required
1. [Decision needed from steering committee]

## Key Risks
| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation |
|------|--------|-------------|------------|
| [X]  | High   | Medium      | [Action]   |

## Accomplishments This Period
- [Achievement 1]
- [Achievement 2]

## Next Period Plan
- [Goal 1]
- [Goal 2]

Preventing RAG Gaming

When RAG status affects perception, people will game it. Here's how to prevent that:

1. Make Thresholds Objective

If Green/Amber/Red is defined by measurable thresholds (cycle time <48h, coverage >80%), there's less room for interpretation. The metric is the status.

2. Separate Messenger from Status

If the team reporting the status also gets judged by it, they have incentive to inflate. Consider having metrics pulled automatically (from CodePulse, CI systems, bug trackers) rather than manually reported.

3. Normalize Amber

Amber should be normal, not shameful. Most projects should be Amber at some point. If everything is always Green, either your thresholds are too loose or people are inflating. Celebrate teams that catch issues early (Amber) before they become crises (Red).

4. Focus on Trend, Not Snapshot

A project that goes Green → Amber is healthier than one that's been "Green" for months then suddenly Red. Show the trend over time, not just the current status.

Related Guides

Learn more about objective engineering metrics that can inform your RAG reporting:

• Board-Ready Engineering Metrics — How to present engineering metrics to executives
• Weekly Engineering Status Report Template — Templates for regular status updates
• Engineering Health Scorecard — Building a comprehensive health dashboard
• Engineering Metrics Dashboard Guide — Setting up objective metrics tracking

Conclusion

RAG status isn't going away—it's too useful for executive communication. But it's only as good as the objectivity behind it. The best RAG reports:

• Use measurable thresholds instead of gut feel
• Include leading indicators to catch issues early
• Normalize Amber as a healthy state, not a failure
• Pull from real data when possible, not manual reports
• Show trends over time, not just snapshots

"The goal isn't a Green dashboard. The goal is early visibility into problems while they're still fixable. A dashboard that's always Green is lying to you."

Start by defining objective thresholds for your most important dimensions. Use tools like CodePulse to get real-time metrics that can inform—or even automate—your RAG status. The result is RAG reporting that actually helps you ship, not just report.