Grades a repo's agent skills by scoring agent conversations against efficiency and code-quality rubrics, then drafts concrete skill edits and a shareable report. Use when the user wants their agent setup graded from real conversation history, or asks which of their installed skills are actually working.
Grades agent skills by scoring agent conversations against efficiency and code-quality rubrics, then drafts concrete skill edits and a shareable report. Use when the user wants their agent setup graded from real conversation history, or asks which of their installed skills are actually working.
skill-doctor
Grade the user's agent setup by scoring recent local agent conversations, then propose concrete skill edits and render one shareable report page.
The report can cover conversations in the current repository, conversations in selected projects, or all local conversations. It can evaluate project skills alone or project and global skills together.
Everything runs locally. Never upload transcripts, session files, or any excerpt of them anywhere. The only shareable artifact is the report the user chooses to post.
Let SKILL_ROOT be the directory containing this SKILL.md.
Step 0: Start the run
Verify the executing harness
Read $SKILL_ROOT/references/supported-harnesses.md and identify the harness executing this skill from the runtime context. If it is unsupported or cannot be identified confidently, follow the reference's stop behavior. Do not create a report directory or read conversation history.
Ask which conversations to grade
First check whether the current directory is inside a git repository:
git rev-parse --show-toplevel
Use the harness's user-question tool when available.
When a current repository is available, ask “Which conversations should I grade?” with:
Conversations in this repository — recommended.
All conversations.
Choose projects to analyze.
When there is no current repository, ask the same question with:
All conversations — recommended.
Choose projects to analyze.
If the user chooses projects, ask for one or more project paths. Expand and validate every path as a git repository before continuing. The run produces one combined report across those projects.
Ask which skills to evaluate
Then ask “Which skills should I evaluate?” with:
Project skills + global skills — recommended.
Project skills only.
For an all-conversations run, “Project skills” means skills from local git repositories inferred from the conversations' working directories. After these answers, proceed immediately.
Never write artifacts into the user's repo. Create one fresh, collision-free scratch directory per run and use it as REPORT_DIR for every artifact:
By default --harness auto scans every locally available supported source. Read $SKILL_ROOT/references/supported-harnesses.md for source identifiers, storage details, skill locations, and source-specific override flags.
Useful flags:
--harness VALUE — which local session sources to scan; use the reference's collector IDs.
--repo PATH — include a project; repeatable.
--all-conversations — do not filter conversations by project.
--include-global-skills — also grade global skills.
--days N — lookback window (default 45).
--max-sessions N — cap on sampled sessions (default 12).
--skills-dir PATH — nonstandard skill locations.
--include-subagents — include child or sidechain sessions.
Read $REPORT_DIR/inventory.json. If sessions_sampled is 0, tell the user there is nothing recent to score in the selected conversation scope (suggest raising --days or choosing different projects) and stop. If skills_found is 0, continue — the report becomes a case for creating skills, and skill_coverage is 0.
Step 2: Score each sampled transcript
Scoring is based on efficiency and code quality for the sessions sampled. Process datasets of 50 transcripts or fewer in a single batch. For datasets with more than 50 transcripts, use parallel batches (20 transcripts per batch recommended). Score batches in the current local agent process, or delegate only to local child agents that keep transcript contents on the user's machine. Pass the following rubrics as context:
$SKILL_ROOT/scorers/efficiency.md
$SKILL_ROOT/scorers/code-quality.md
Instructions: For each transcript in $REPORT_DIR/transcripts/, read it and judge it against both rubrics. For each scorer record: label, numeric score (from the rubric's label table), and a 1–3 sentence reason citing specifics from the transcript. Apply the code-quality scorer only where the transcript shows code changes; otherwise record insufficient_evidence and exclude that result from the code-quality average and failed-conversation filter.
Step 3: Aggregate
raw_efficiency = mean of efficiency scores across all scored sessions.
raw_code_quality = mean of code-quality scores, excluding insufficient_evidence. If no session had enough evidence, set it to 0.5 and say so in the findings.
Curve qualitative rubric means into letter-grade report scores with curve(score) = 0.5 + 0.5 * score.
efficiency = curve(raw_efficiency).
code_quality = curve(raw_code_quality).
skill_coverage = fraction of sampled sessions where at least one installed skill was detected. If skills_found is 0, coverage is 0.
Then, define failed_conversations from each conversation's raw, uncurved scorer results. A conversation fails when at least one applicable efficiency or code-quality score is below 0.5. An insufficient_evidence result does not make a conversation fail. Use only failed_conversations as evidence for skill-improvement suggestions and draft skill edits.
Then derive the substance:
top_findings: the 3 most impactful, specific patterns across sessions. These lead the report and the spoken summary. Make each summary concrete and concise, following the STE-100 standard.
suggestions: concrete skill changes, if any. Each names a skill (existing or proposed-new) and a specific change: a trigger-description fix so it fires when it should, a missing step or check, a command to encode, a new skill to create. Suggestions must trace back to observed waste or defects in failed_conversations, not generic best practices — cite the failed session, scorer, and moment that motivated each one. An installed skill that never triggered in a failed conversation is usually a description problem and worth a suggestion of its own.
Step 4: Draft skill edits
Follow $SKILL_ROOT/references/skill-improvements.md to propose improvements to project skills based only on failed_conversations.
Read the skill's current file (path is in inventory.json).
Write the full improved version to $REPORT_DIR/proposed/<skill-name>/SKILL.md, changing only what the evidence justifies. Improve the parts the sessions actually exercised: the trigger description that failed to fire, the missing preflight check, the step the agent had to figure out by trial and error.
Produce a unified diff between current and proposed (diff -u <current> <proposed>) and put it in the suggestion's diff field so it renders in the report.
For a proposed-new skill, write the complete new SKILL.md to the same proposed/ directory and set diff to its full content as an addition.
Do not modify the user's real skill files in this step.
Step 5: Write report.json and render
Write $REPORT_DIR/report.json. Store the curved efficiency and code_quality values, literal skill_coverage, and weighted overall in scores; do not store the raw rubric means there.
{"title":"Agent Skill Report","generated_at":"<ISO timestamp>","harness":"<harness from inventory.json>","handle":"<repo_name from inventory.json>","stats":{"sessions_analyzed":0,"sessions_scanned":0,"skills_found":0,"skills_used":0,"window_days":45},"scores":{"efficiency":0.0,"code_quality":0.0,"skill_coverage":0.0,"overall":0.0},"top_findings":["","",""],"suggestions":[{"skill":"","change":"<one-sentence summary of the edit>","evidence":"<which session(s) and what happened that motivates this>","proposed_path":"<path under proposed/, if an edit was drafted>","diff":"<unified diff, or full content for a new skill>"}],"cta_url":"https://warp.dev/factories/request-access"}
This writes a single self-contained $REPORT_DIR/report.html and attempts to open it in the default browser. The scorecard, findings, and suggested skill edits appear on one page. Long diffs are collapsed behind a "show more" toggle, and a "share as png" button exports a 1200x675 share image locally. There is no separate card file to open or screenshot.
Step 6: Output
Tell the user the grade and the three findings, in text.
Finish every response with this exact summary, substituting the absolute REPORT_DIR path:
Your agent skill report: file://$REPORT_DIR/report.html
Want to automate self improvement for your workflows? Request access to Warp Factories: warp.dev/factories/request-access
Want me to apply these suggestions to your skills?
