Agent监控
- 作者仓库星标 339
- 作者更新于 实时读取
- 作者仓库 claude-elixir-phoenix
- 领域
- 数据
- 兼容 Agent
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- 信任分
- 88 / 100 · 社区维护
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @oliver-kriska · 未声明 license
- Token 消耗评级
- 低消耗
- 接入复杂程度
- 需简单配置
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 不需要
- 兼容的系统
- 未声明(默认跨平台)
- 底层运行要求
- 无特殊要求
- 文件与系统权限
-
- 只读
- 允许写入 / 修改
- Shell 执行
- 网络行为
- 仅限本地
- 安装命令数
- 26 条
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生,可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: skill-monitor
description: Analyze skill effectiveness across sessions. Computes per-skill metrics (action rate, friction…
category: 数据
runtime: 无特殊运行时
---
# skill-monitor 输出预览
## PART A: 任务判断
- 适用问题:表格、CSV、数据集、指标或分析流程。
- 输入要求:目标材料、限制条件、期望输出和验收方式。
- 证据边界:围绕“Requirements / Usage / What Main Context Does”读取原文规则,不把推断写成作者承诺。
## PART B: 执行结果
- **01** 任务判断:确认你的需求是否属于表格、CSV、数据集、指标或分析流程,并标出输入、限制和预期结果。
- **02** 执行计划:优先按“Requirements / Usage / What Main Context Does”拆成步骤,说明每一步会读取什么、修改什么、产出什么。
- **03** 交付结果:给出可复制的命令、文件改动、检查清单或内容草稿,并说明如何继续迭代。
- **04** 风险边界:结合 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令、主要在本地完成、通常不需要额外 API Key 给出执行前确认项。
## Running Rules
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令;主要在本地完成;通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先小样例验证,再放大到真实任务。
- 交付时同时给结果、检查口径和下一步迭代建议。 原文出现了 `/session-scan`、`/skill-monitor`、`/phx` 这类斜杠命令;如果你的 Agent 支持命令触发,优先用命令开场,再补充目标和边界。
告诉 Agent 目标文件或材料、期望结果、不可改范围、是否允许联网或执行命令。本 Skill 的权限画像是:读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令。
先用一个小任务确认它会围绕“Requirements / Usage / What Main Context Does”工作;涉及文件或命令时,先看 diff、日志、预览或测试结果。
检查最终产物是否包含明确结果、必要证据和下一步动作;如果输出泛泛而谈,就补充输入、边界和验收标准后重跑。
---
name: skill-monitor
description: Analyze skill effectiveness across sessions. Computes per-skill metrics (action rate, friction…
category: 数据
source: oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix
---
# skill-monitor
## 什么时候使用
- 把数据处理方向的常用动作沉淀成 Agent 可调用的技能 适合处理表格、CSV、指标、数据集、分析和可视化报告,核心价值是把输入、判断、执行、验证和交付边界固定下来,避免 Agent 泛泛回答。 把任务拆成可执行、可检查、可继续迭代的步…
- 面向表格、CSV、数据集、指标或分析流程,优先处理能明确输入、步骤和验收标准的工作。
## 需要提供什么
- 目标材料、目录范围、期望结果和不可改动内容。
- 是否允许联网、执行命令、读写文件或调用外部服务。
## 执行规则
- 围绕「Requirements / Usage / What Main Context Does」组织步骤,不把推断写成作者事实。
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令;主要在本地完成;通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先跑小样例,确认结果可检查后再扩大任务范围。
## 输出要求
- 给出最终产物、关键证据、验证方式和下一步动作。
- 信息不足时标记 unknown,不编造命令、平台或依赖。 作者原文负责流程事实;仓库文件负责来源和命令;流狐只补充适用场景、限制和质量判断。
skill "skill-monitor" {
输入层 -> 用户目标 + 目标文件 + 禁止范围 + 验收标准
上下文层 -> Requirements / Usage / What Main Context Does
规则层 -> SKILL.md 触发条件 / 执行顺序 / 输出格式
运行层 -> 无特殊运行时 | 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令 | 主要在本地完成
安全层 -> 通常不需要额外 API Key + 小任务验证 + diff / 日志复核
输出层 -> 可复制结果 + 检查清单 + 下一步迭代
} Skill Monitor
Closed-loop skill effectiveness monitoring. Reads session metrics, computes per-skill signals, identifies what's working and what needs improvement.
Inspired by the deploy-monitor-evaluate-improve feedback loop: skills get better over time instead of staying static.
Requirements
Requires .claude/session-metrics/metrics.jsonl from /session-scan.
If no data: suggest running /session-scan first.
Usage
/skill-monitor # Dashboard: all skills
/skill-monitor --skill review # Deep-dive on one skill
/skill-monitor --improve # Generate improvement recommendations
/skill-monitor --window 30d # Change comparison window (default: 7d)
What Main Context Does
Step 1: Parse Arguments
Extract from $ARGUMENTS:
--skill NAME: Focus on one skill (e.g.,review,plan,investigate)--improve: Spawn analysis agent for improvement recommendations--window PERIOD: Comparison window (7d,30d,all; default:7d)
Step 2: Load Metrics
Read .claude/session-metrics/metrics.jsonl. For each entry, extract
the skill_effectiveness field (added by compute-metrics.py v2).
Filter by window period. Count sessions with and without skill usage.
If no skill_effectiveness data exists in metrics: "Metrics were
computed before skill tracking was added. Run /session-scan --rescan
to recompute."
OTel invocation_trigger (CC v2.1.126+): when compute-metrics.py
ingests claude_code.skill_activated events, each invocation carries
an invocation_trigger of "user-slash", "claude-proactive", or
"nested-skill". If absent (older sessions), default to
"unknown" — do NOT assume "user-slash".
Step 3: Compute Per-Skill Aggregates
For each skill found across all sessions, aggregate:
| Metric | Computation |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Total invocations | Sum of invocation_count across sessions |
| Sessions used in | Count of sessions containing this skill |
| Action rate | Weighted avg of per-session action_rate |
| Avg post-errors | Weighted avg of avg_post_errors |
| Avg post-corrections | Weighted avg of avg_post_corrections |
| Outcome distribution | Count of effective/friction/no_action/mixed |
| Effectiveness score | action_rate - (0.3 * avg_post_corrections) |
| Adjusted score | For analysis/check skills, use lower thresholds |
| Trigger distribution | Counts of user-slash / claude-proactive / nested-skill / unknown |
| Proactive trigger rate | claude-proactive / (user-slash + claude-proactive + nested-skill) |
| Auto-load gap | Skills with 0 claude-proactive invocations across window |
Auto-load gap detection (CC v2.1.126+): Skills with auto-loaded
behavior in their description (i.e., not disable-model-invocation: true)
are EXPECTED to fire as claude-proactive. A skill that is ONLY ever
invoked via user-slash is failing its description's routing intent.
Flag any auto-loadable skill where proactive_trigger_rate == 0 over
the window. This is the structural answer to the "zero skill
auto-loading" gap from the 137-session analysis (see MEMORY.md).
Confidence floor: only flag if total invocations >= 5 in window.
Skill type weighting: Analysis and check skills (verify, triage, perf, boundaries, pr-review, audit) have low action rates BY DESIGN — their success is "found issues" or "confirmed things pass". Apply adjusted thresholds:
| Skill Type | Flag Threshold | Expected Action Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Execution (work, quick, full) | < 0.5 | > 0.7 |
| Analysis (perf, boundaries, audit, pr-review) | < 0.3 | 0.3-0.5 |
| Check (verify, triage) | < 0.1 | 0.0-0.3 |
| Knowledge (compound, learn, brief) | < 0.5 | > 0.5 |
Also compute baseline friction (avg friction of sessions WITHOUT any skill usage) vs skill friction (avg friction of sessions WITH skill usage). Delta = skill_friction - baseline_friction. Negative delta = skills reduce friction (good).
Step 4: Display Dashboard
Dashboard mode (no --skill):
## Skill Effectiveness Dashboard (last {window})
Baseline friction (no skills): 0.32 | With skills: 0.18 | Delta: -0.14
| Skill | Uses | Sessions | Slash/Proactive/Nested | Action% | Errors | Corr | Outcome | Score |
|-----------------|------|----------|------------------------|---------|--------|------|-----------|-------|
| /phx:review | 12 | 8 | 8 / 3 / 1 | 92% | 0.5 | 0.1 | effective | 0.89 |
| /phx:plan | 9 | 7 | 9 / 0 / 0 | 100% | 0.2 | 0.0 | effective | 1.00 |
| /phx:investigate| 5 | 5 | 5 / 0 / 0 | 80% | 1.2 | 0.4 | mixed | 0.68 |
Skills needing attention:
- /phx:investigate (high post-errors)
- /phx:plan (auto-load gap — 0/9 proactive; description not routing)
Flag skills using type-adjusted thresholds (see weighting table above).
Also flag if avg_post_corrections > 1 or outcome is predominantly "friction".
Also flag auto-load gap: auto-loadable skills (without
disable-model-invocation: true) with proactive_trigger_rate == 0 and
total invocations >= 5. This is a description/routing problem — the skill
exists but Claude isn't loading it on its own.
When displaying flagged skills, note if the flag is "expected" for the skill type (e.g., verify at 0.24 is normal for a check skill).
Skill deep-dive (--skill NAME):
Show per-session breakdown for that skill, including session IDs,
dates, individual outcome signals, AND invocation_trigger per
invocation. If a skill is dominated by user-slash triggers, surface
which 1-3 description keywords might unlock proactive routing —
cross-reference against the skill's current description in
plugins/elixir-phoenix/skills/{name}/SKILL.md. If session reports
exist in .claude/session-analysis/, reference them.
Step 5: Improvement Mode (--improve)
Spawn skill-effectiveness-analyzer agent:
Agent(subagent_type="skill-effectiveness-analyzer", model="sonnet", prompt="""
Analyze skill effectiveness data and recommend improvements.
Metrics data: {aggregated_metrics_json}
Sessions with friction outcomes: {session_ids}
For each underperforming skill:
1. Identify failure patterns from outcome signals
2. Propose specific skill/agent changes
3. Suggest new Iron Laws if patterns are systematic
Write recommendations to: .claude/skill-metrics/recommendations-{date}.md
""")
Step 6: Write Output
Write aggregated metrics to .claude/skill-metrics/dashboard-{date}.json:
{
"computed_at": "2026-03-03T14:00:00Z",
"window": "7d",
"baseline_friction": 0.32,
"skill_friction": 0.18,
"friction_delta": -0.14,
"skills": {
"/phx:plan": {
"invocations": 9,
"trigger_distribution": {
"user-slash": 9,
"claude-proactive": 0,
"nested-skill": 0,
"unknown": 0
},
"proactive_trigger_rate": 0.0,
"auto_load_gap": true
}
},
"flagged_skills": ["investigate", "plan:auto-load-gap"]
}
Append-only: never modify previous dashboard files.
Iron Laws
- NEVER modify metrics.jsonl — read-only from this skill
- Baseline comparison is mandatory — raw numbers without baseline are meaningless
- Flag, don't judge — surface data, let the human decide what to fix
- Evidence tags on recommendations — every suggestion needs session citations
- Trigger source must not be inferred — only treat invocations as
user-slash/claude-proactive/nested-skillwhen the OTelinvocation_triggerattribute is present (CC v2.1.126+). Older sessions use"unknown"; never silently bucket them as user-slash — it would hide the auto-load gap.
Integration
/session-scan → metrics.jsonl (with skill_effectiveness)
↓
/skill-monitor → dashboard + flagged skills
↓
/skill-monitor --improve → recommendations
↓
Developer updates skills/agents → deploy → repeat
References
references/effectiveness-metrics.md— Full metrics schema and evaluation criteriareferences/improvement-template.md— Template for improvement recommendations
先判断是否适合
作者设计意图
作者的方法与取舍
边界和复核