Claude Skill

productivity-score

Calculate a productivity score using actual Agent Monitor metrics — session completion rates, cache efficiency (cache_read vs input), compaction pressure (baseline tokens), turn velocity (turn_count / total_turn_duration_ms), tool success ratio (PreToolUse vs PostToolUse), and th

LLM Mart · 0 points · 8 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download hoangsonww-claude-code-agent-monitor-plugins_ccam-analytics_skills_productivity-score-83d4df5.zip · 2 KB
Part of hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor — 86 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/hoangsonww/Claude-Code-Agent-Monitor/tree/master/plugins/ccam-analytics/skills/productivity-score
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install hoangsonww-claude-code-agent-monitor@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/hoangsonww/Claude-Code-Agent-Monitor.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Productivity Score

Calculate a productivity scorecard from the Agent Monitor's real data.

Input

The user provides: $ARGUMENTS

Options: "today", "this week", "last 30 days", a session ID, or "compare" for period comparison.

Data Sources

Endpoint Returns
GET /api/analytics Token totals (total_input, total_output, total_cache_read, total_cache_write — baselines pre-summed), tool_usage top 20, daily_events/sessions, event_types, sessions_by_status, agents_by_status, avg_events_per_session, total_subagents
GET /api/sessions?limit=100 Sessions with metadata JSON: thinking_blocks, turn_count, total_turn_duration_ms, usage_extras (service_tier, speed, inference_geo)
GET /api/pricing/cost Total cost with per-model breakdown
GET /api/workflows/{sessionId} 11 workflow datasets: stats, orchestration, toolFlow, effectiveness, patterns, modelDelegation, errorPropagation, concurrency, complexity, compaction, cooccurrence

Score Components (each 0–100)

1. Completion Rate (20% weight)

From sessions_by_status:

  • completed / (completed + error + abandoned) × 100
  • Bonus for high completed-to-active ratio
  • Penalty for abandoned sessions (wasted work)

2. Token Efficiency (20% weight)

From analytics tokens (baselines are pre-summed into totals):

  • Cache hit rate: total_cache_read / (total_cache_read + total_input) × 100
    • Above 60% = excellent, below 30% = poor
  • Output concentration: total_output / total_input — 0.3–0.8 is balanced

3. Tool Effectiveness (20% weight)

From event_types:

  • Success ratio: Count PostToolUse / Count PreToolUse — should be ~1.0; gap = tool failures
  • API error rate: Count APIError / total events — should be near 0
  • From workflow effectiveness data: subagent completion rates, task success per type

4. Velocity (20% weight)

From session metadata:

  • Turns per session: average turn_count across sessions
  • Turn speed: average total_turn_duration_ms / turn_count — lower = faster
  • Events per session: from avg_events_per_session in analytics overview
  • Thinking depth: average thinking_blocks — more thinking = more thorough (neutral metric)

5. Cost Efficiency (20% weight)

From pricing:

  • Cost per completed session: total_cost / completed_sessions
  • Cost trend: comparing current period to previous (decreasing = improving)
  • Model optimization: sessions using expensive models (Opus) for tasks subagents handle with Haiku/Sonnet

Overall Score

Weighted sum → letter grade:

  • A+ (95-100), A (90-94), B+ (85-89), B (80-84), C+ (75-79), C (70-74), D (60-69), F (<60)

Output Format

═══════════════════════════════════════
  PRODUCTIVITY SCORE: 87/100 (B+)
═══════════════════════════════════════
  Completion Rate   ████████░░  80/100
  Token Efficiency  █████████░  92/100
  Tool Effectiveness████████░░  85/100
  Velocity          █████████░  88/100
  Cost Efficiency   █████████░  90/100
═══════════════════════════════════════

Then: top 3 strengths, top 3 improvement areas with actionable steps, and period comparison if available.

Files (claude-code-agent-monitor)
  • agents
    • openai.yaml 274 B
      interface:
        display_name: "Productivity Score"
        short_description: "Calculate a productivity score using actual Agent Monitor..."
        default_prompt: "Use $productivity-score to inspect CCAM data and complete this workflow safely."
      policy:
        allow_implicit_invocation: true
      
  • SKILL.md 3.9 KB
    ---
    name: productivity-score
    description: >
      Calculate a productivity score using actual Agent Monitor metrics —
      session completion rates, cache efficiency (cache_read vs input),
      compaction pressure (baseline tokens), turn velocity (turn_count /
      total_turn_duration_ms), tool success ratio (PreToolUse vs PostToolUse),
      and the workflow intelligence API's complexity and effectiveness scores.
    ---
    
    # Productivity Score
    
    Calculate a productivity scorecard from the Agent Monitor's real data.
    
    ## Input
    
    The user provides: **$ARGUMENTS**
    
    Options: "today", "this week", "last 30 days", a session ID, or "compare" for period comparison.
    
    ## Data Sources
    
    | Endpoint | Returns |
    |----------|---------|
    | `GET /api/analytics` | Token totals (`total_input`, `total_output`, `total_cache_read`, `total_cache_write` — baselines pre-summed), tool_usage top 20, daily_events/sessions, event_types, sessions_by_status, agents_by_status, avg_events_per_session, total_subagents |
    | `GET /api/sessions?limit=100` | Sessions with metadata JSON: `thinking_blocks`, `turn_count`, `total_turn_duration_ms`, `usage_extras` (service_tier, speed, inference_geo) |
    | `GET /api/pricing/cost` | Total cost with per-model breakdown |
    | `GET /api/workflows/{sessionId}` | 11 workflow datasets: stats, orchestration, toolFlow, effectiveness, patterns, modelDelegation, errorPropagation, concurrency, complexity, compaction, cooccurrence |
    
    ## Score Components (each 0–100)
    
    ### 1. Completion Rate (20% weight)
    From `sessions_by_status`:
    - `completed / (completed + error + abandoned) × 100`
    - Bonus for high completed-to-active ratio
    - Penalty for abandoned sessions (wasted work)
    
    ### 2. Token Efficiency (20% weight)
    From analytics `tokens` (baselines are pre-summed into totals):
    - **Cache hit rate**: `total_cache_read / (total_cache_read + total_input) × 100`
      - Above 60% = excellent, below 30% = poor
    - **Output concentration**: `total_output / total_input` — 0.3–0.8 is balanced
    
    ### 3. Tool Effectiveness (20% weight)
    From `event_types`:
    - **Success ratio**: Count `PostToolUse` / Count `PreToolUse` — should be ~1.0; gap = tool failures
    - **API error rate**: Count `APIError` / total events — should be near 0
    - From workflow `effectiveness` data: subagent completion rates, task success per type
    
    ### 4. Velocity (20% weight)
    From session metadata:
    - **Turns per session**: average `turn_count` across sessions
    - **Turn speed**: average `total_turn_duration_ms / turn_count` — lower = faster
    - **Events per session**: from `avg_events_per_session` in analytics overview
    - **Thinking depth**: average `thinking_blocks` — more thinking = more thorough (neutral metric)
    
    ### 5. Cost Efficiency (20% weight)
    From pricing:
    - **Cost per completed session**: `total_cost / completed_sessions`
    - **Cost trend**: comparing current period to previous (decreasing = improving)
    - **Model optimization**: sessions using expensive models (Opus) for tasks subagents handle with Haiku/Sonnet
    
    ## Overall Score
    
    Weighted sum → letter grade:
    - **A+** (95-100), **A** (90-94), **B+** (85-89), **B** (80-84), **C+** (75-79), **C** (70-74), **D** (60-69), **F** (<60)
    
    ## Output Format
    
    ```
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
      PRODUCTIVITY SCORE: 87/100 (B+)
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
      Completion Rate   ████████░░  80/100
      Token Efficiency  █████████░  92/100
      Tool Effectiveness████████░░  85/100
      Velocity          █████████░  88/100
      Cost Efficiency   █████████░  90/100
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
    ```
    
    Then: top 3 strengths, top 3 improvement areas with actionable steps, and period comparison if available.
    

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related