القائمة
Expert at analyzing the quality of Claude's responses and outputs. Use when evaluating response completeness, accuracy, clarity, or effectiveness. Auto-invokes during self-reflection or when quality assessment is needed.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Expert at creating Claude Code event hooks for automation and policy enforcement. Auto-invokes when creating/updating hooks, modifying hooks.json, designing event-driven automation, or writing hook configurations.
Expert at creating and modifying Claude Code agents. Auto-invokes when creating/updating agents, modifying agent frontmatter (model, tools, description), designing agent architecture, or writing to */agents/*.md files.
Expert at creating and modifying Claude Code slash commands. Auto-invokes when creating/updating commands, modifying command frontmatter (model, allowed-tools, argument-hint), designing workflows, or writing to */commands/*.md files.
Expert at integrating MCP servers into Claude Code plugins. Auto-invokes when configuring MCP servers (stdio/SSE/HTTP/WebSocket), writing .mcp.json files, or adding external tool integrations.
Expert at creating Claude Code plugins that bundle agents, skills, commands, and hooks. Auto-invokes when creating/structuring plugins, writing plugin.json manifests, or bundling components into packages.
Expert at performing task X automatically. Auto-invokes when the user wants to do Y, needs help with Z, or encounters situation W.
| name | analyzing-response-quality |
| description | Expert at analyzing the quality of Claude's responses and outputs. Use when evaluating response completeness, accuracy, clarity, or effectiveness. Auto-invokes during self-reflection or when quality assessment is needed. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
You are an expert at analyzing the quality of Claude's responses. This skill provides systematic evaluation of outputs across multiple quality dimensions to identify strengths, weaknesses, and improvement opportunities.
You specialize in:
Claude should automatically invoke this skill when:
Analysis Questions:
Analysis Questions:
Analysis Questions:
Analysis Questions:
Analysis Questions:
Analysis Questions:
Use this systematic approach:
User Request: [Original request]
Requirements Identified:
1. [Requirement 1]
2. [Requirement 2]
3. [Requirement 3]
Addressed: [✓/✗ for each]
What was delivered:
- [Output 1: Description]
- [Output 2: Description]
- [Output 3: Description]
What was explained:
- [Explanation 1]
- [Explanation 2]
Rate each dimension (1-5):
Correctness: X/5 - [Brief explanation]
Completeness: X/5 - [Brief explanation]
Clarity: X/5 - [Brief explanation]
Efficiency: X/5 - [Brief explanation]
Security: X/5 - [Brief explanation]
Usability: X/5 - [Brief explanation]
Overall: X/5
Identify specific issues:
🔴 Critical:
- [Issue 1: Description and impact]
- [Issue 2: Description and impact]
🟡 Important:
- [Issue 1: Description and impact]
- [Issue 2: Description and impact]
🟢 Minor:
- [Issue 1: Description and impact]
What's missing:
Missing Functionality:
- [What's not there that should be]
Missing Documentation:
- [What needs better explanation]
Missing Validation:
- [What error cases aren't handled]
Missing Optimization:
- [What could be more efficient]
Symptom: User says "what about X?" after response Cause: Didn't address all aspects of request Fix: Explicitly list requirements and check each
Symptom: Solution doesn't work in user's environment Cause: Made unstated assumptions Fix: Ask clarifying questions; state assumptions
Symptom: Solution is overly complex Cause: Didn't start with simplest approach Fix: Begin with minimal solution; iterate
Symptom: User confused about how to use Cause: Insufficient documentation/examples Fix: Add usage examples; explain steps
Symptom: Code has vulnerabilities Cause: Didn't think about attack vectors Fix: Security review; input validation; auth checks
Symptom: Solution is slow or inefficient Cause: Didn't consider scale or optimization Fix: Analyze complexity; optimize critical paths
Symptom: Crashes on unexpected input Cause: Didn't validate inputs or handle errors Fix: Add validation; try-catch; graceful degradation
# Quality Analysis Report
## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]
## Requirement Coverage
| Requirement | Addressed | Quality | Notes |
|-------------|-----------|---------|-------|
| Req 1 | ✓/✗ | X/5 | ... |
| Req 2 | ✓/✗ | X/5 | ... |
## Quality Scores
- **Correctness**: X/5 - [Why]
- **Completeness**: X/5 - [Why]
- **Clarity**: X/5 - [Why]
- **Efficiency**: X/5 - [Why]
- **Security**: X/5 - [Why]
- **Usability**: X/5 - [Why]
- **Overall**: X/5
## Issues Found
### 🔴 Critical Issues
1. [Issue with specific location and impact]
2. [Issue with specific location and impact]
### 🟡 Important Issues
1. [Issue with explanation]
2. [Issue with explanation]
### 🟢 Minor Issues
1. [Issue with suggestion]
2. [Issue with suggestion]
## Strengths
- [What was done particularly well]
- [Good decisions made]
## Gaps Identified
- **Missing**: [What's missing]
- **Incomplete**: [What's partially done]
- **Uncovered**: [What edge cases weren't handled]
## Recommendations
1. [Highest priority improvement]
2. [Next priority improvement]
3. [Additional suggestions]
## Next Steps
[What should be done immediately]
⚠️ Note: The validation scripts below are planned features but not yet implemented. This skill currently provides manual guidelines for quality analysis. See GitHub issue #20 for implementation tracking.
Future automation features (not yet available):
# NOT YET IMPLEMENTED - Manual analysis required
python {baseDir}/scripts/check-code-quality.py <file>
When implemented, will check:
# NOT YET IMPLEMENTED - Manual analysis required
python {baseDir}/scripts/check-completeness.py <conversation-file>
When implemented, will compare:
# NOT YET IMPLEMENTED - Manual analysis required
python {baseDir}/scripts/check-documentation.py <output-dir>
When implemented, will validate:
Current usage: Use the quality evaluation framework and checklists above for manual analysis.
Context: Claude implemented a user authentication system
Analysis:
Quality Scores:
- Correctness: 3/5 - Logic works but has SQL injection vulnerability
- Completeness: 4/5 - Missing password reset flow
- Clarity: 4/5 - Well-documented but lacks usage examples
- Efficiency: 3/5 - No caching; hitting DB on every request
- Security: 2/5 - SQL injection, no rate limiting, weak password policy
- Usability: 4/5 - Easy to integrate but setup not documented
Issues:
🔴 SQL injection in login function (line 45)
🔴 Passwords stored with weak hashing (MD5)
🟡 Missing rate limiting on login attempts
🟡 No password reset functionality
🟡 Session tokens not securely generated
🟢 Could add remember-me functionality
Recommendations:
1. IMMEDIATE: Fix SQL injection (use parameterized queries)
2. IMMEDIATE: Upgrade to bcrypt for password hashing
3. Soon: Add rate limiting middleware
4. Soon: Implement password reset flow
5. Consider: Add session management improvements
Context: Claude explained async/await in JavaScript
Analysis:
Quality Scores:
- Correctness: 5/5 - Accurate information
- Completeness: 3/5 - Didn't cover error handling
- Clarity: 4/5 - Good progression but lacks diagrams
- Efficiency: N/A
- Security: N/A
- Usability: 4/5 - Good examples but no exercise
Strengths:
+ Clear progression from callbacks to promises to async/await
+ Good use of analogies (restaurant example)
+ Code examples are correct and practical
Gaps:
- No discussion of try-catch with async/await
- Missing explanation of Promise.all for parallel operations
- Didn't mention common pitfall: forgetting await
- No discussion of async in loops
Recommendations:
1. Add section on error handling
2. Include Promise.all example
3. Add "common mistakes" section
4. Provide practice exercise
When this skill is invoked:
Your analysis helps Claude continuously improve response quality and better serve users.