Name: process-mapper
Rating: 70.39999999999999 (1 reviews)
Author: alirezarezvani

process-mapper

Use when a BizOps lead, COO, or process-improvement owner needs to document an end-to-end business process (procurement, employee onboarding, incident handoff, customer-onboarding, claims adjudication) in BPMN-style notation, measure cycle times by stage, surface where work spends most of its time waiting vs. being worked, and quantify the gap between processing time and total elapsed time. Pairs Lean / Six Sigma / Theory-of-Constraints canon with deterministic stdlib-only Python tools to produce a process map, a ranked bottleneck list (with severity + root-cause hypothesis), and a cycle-time analysis (P50, P90, value-add ratio, Little's-Law throughput). Distinct from sales-pipeline, system-reliability (SLO), and strategic-OKR work — this is tactical process documentation for internal operations.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is process-mapper in alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Quality

Content

73%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is well-structured and actionable with a clear five-step workflow and concrete scripts, but it references bundle files (scripts and references) that do not exist in the skill directory, weakening progressive disclosure. Conciseness is good though slightly padded by the citation-heavy forcing-question library.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced bundle files (scripts/*.py, references/*.md, assets/process_template.md) or remove the references to them so navigation points to real content.

Add an explicit validation/feedback loop (e.g., 'if cycle_time_analyzer.py reports VA% < 10%, re-check stage type labels for mis-classified wait states') to close the workflow with a checkpoint.

Inline the JSON intake skeleton or trim the per-citation canon references in the forcing-question library to reduce tokens without losing the depth-first grill discipline.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'Forcing-question library' section restates Lean/Six Sigma canon and citations that add length; a few citations (Womack & Jones, Ohno, Liker) could be trimmed without losing actionability.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete executable guidance is present (named scripts with flags like `--sample`, `--profile`, a runnable quick example), but the JSON intake schema is described rather than shown inline and scripts are not fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced with named scripts and threshold verdicts, and the forcing questions add depth-first gating checkpoints; however there is no explicit validate-then-fix loop after running the analyzers (errors would be handled implicitly rather than via a feedback step).	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body references scripts and references files but lists NO bundle files exist in ./references/, ./scripts/, or ./assets/ — the referenced files (process_documenter.py, bottleneck_detector.py, lean_six_sigma_canon.md, etc.) are not actually present, so the one-level-deep navigation is asserted but not real.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific, comprehensive, and well-differentiated, with explicit 'Use when' guidance and concrete deliverables. It reads in the third person and avoids vague fluff. It is slightly verbose, but every clause earns its place by pinning a trigger, a deliverable, or a boundary.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Multiple concrete actions are named (BPMN-style process map, ranked bottleneck list with severity + root-cause hypothesis, cycle-time analysis with P50/P90/VA%/Little's-Law) with stdlib-only Python tools — comprehensive coverage.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause plus a clear 'what' (produce a process map, ranked bottleneck list, and cycle-time analysis) with concrete deliverables — both what and when are explicit.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger phrases and synonyms are well covered ('procurement', 'employee onboarding', 'incident handoff', 'customer-onboarding', 'claims adjudication', 'cycle times', 'value-add ratio') alongside role-based triggers a user would say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche (tactical internal-operations process documentation) with an explicit 'Distinct from' clause naming sales-pipeline, SLO, and OKR work, minimizing conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 8 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: .gemini/skills/process-mapper/SKILL.md
Commit: 19392f7

Reviewed: ~12 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.