SKILLEMALL.ai

AB session-feedback-analyzer

Parse Claude Code session JSONL to extract implicit user feedback signals. Detects skill invocations (tool_use blocks with name="Skill" or /slash-commands), classifies user responses as correction/acceptance/partial within a 3-turn influence window, and computes per-skill correction_rate metrics. Not for synthetic evaluation (use improvement-evaluator) or structural scoring (use improvement-learner). Use this when you need to find which skills users correct most often, or generate feedback.jsonl for the improvement-generator.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: _silhouette v1.0.1 MIT-0 7 files body ≈ 3 993 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process B 75/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, progress reporting

AnalyzerSoftware developmentAI and agentsInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
94
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
75/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Failures and branches w 10
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "triggers"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 75/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (git) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 23 steps
    • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3993 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
    • low The response is described with custom markup (6 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 531: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 15 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 23 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (10 code blocks)
    • +3All 2 scripts are documented
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 94.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This skill appears to do what it claims, but it reads broad local Claude session history and stores user-message excerpts by default.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026