Analyse human-AI collaboration patterns and compute quality metrics from captured session data.
88
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description with strong completeness and distinctiveness. It explicitly provides both 'what' and 'when' clauses with specific trigger terms. The main weakness is that the specific capabilities could be more concrete—listing particular metrics or pattern types would strengthen the specificity dimension.
Suggestions
Add more concrete action details, e.g., 'Computes response time metrics, turn-taking ratios, and topic coherence scores from captured sessions' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain ('collaboration patterns', 'captured sessions') and some actions ('analyze', 'compute metrics'), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions. What specific metrics are computed? What specific patterns are analyzed? The actions remain somewhat abstract. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (analyze collaboration patterns and compute metrics from captured sessions) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause plus a 'Triggers include' list with specific phrases). Both components are present and explicit. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural trigger terms including 'retrospect collab', 'collaboration analysis', 'session patterns', 'how am I collaborating', plus contextual terms like 'collaboration quality', 'human-AI interaction', 'session metrics'. These cover both formal and casual phrasings a user might use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The niche of analyzing human-AI collaboration patterns from captured sessions is quite specific and unlikely to conflict with other skills. The trigger terms like 'retrospect collab' and 'how am I collaborating' are distinctive and narrowly scoped. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with strong actionability and workflow clarity. The steps are concrete and sequenced, the metrics format is precise with explicit targets, and the gotchas section handles edge cases thoughtfully. The main weakness is moderate verbosity in the anti-patterns and principles sections, though the content there is genuinely useful rather than padding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary content. The anti-patterns section with WHY explanations is somewhat verbose, and the 'When to Use' section restates trigger phrases already in the description. The principles section is well-written but could be tighter. The HTML comments in anti-patterns add useful context but also bulk. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (bash scripts with arguments), specific analysis dimensions to evaluate, a precise metrics summary format with exact thresholds (>60% high-impact, <20% automation), and clear usage examples with multiple invocation patterns. The steps are specific enough to follow without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced from session filtering through reading, analysis (technical + cognitive), generating recommendations, writing output, and reporting. Validation is addressed through the gotchas section (handling missing duration_seconds, unreadable files, partial reports). The session loader parsing caveat about the PERIOD header line serves as an explicit checkpoint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a clear overview with well-organized sections (When to Use, Steps, Usage Examples, Metrics Format, Gotchas) and references detailed scoring rubrics and report formats via a single-level-deep reference to 'references/reference.md'. Content is appropriately split between the main skill and the reference file. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents