agentleFS
kensauruskensaurus/cursor-kenji/skills/audit-analytics/SKILL.md

audit-analytics

Skill9 starsChanged 42 days agoMITView on GitHub

Read-only audit of product-analytics events (PostHog, Amplitude, Mixpanel, GA4): taxonomy, funnels, consent-gated firing, dead or duplicate events. Use when "audit our analytics", "are we tracking the right events", or "funnel instrumentation".

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read-only. You verify the app measures what the business needs to decide, with one taxonomy, without leaking PII or firing before consent.

    line 18
  2. Very specific:

    Do not fire for "build me a chart" → data-visualization.

    line 38
  3. Very specific:

    Do not fire for "GDPR / privacy labels" alone → plan-privacy-compliance (then come back here for the event matrix).

    line 39

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

audit-analytics — Product-event instrumentation

Degree of freedom: HIGH — judgment on taxonomy and funnel coverage. Consent-gate proof is [LOW freedom] when you confirm the SDK does not init on boot (quote the init site; do not invent a legal opinion).

Read-only. You verify the app measures what the business needs to decide, with one taxonomy, without leaking PII or firing before consent.

The failure mode is silent: the dashboard looks populated, but the key funnel step was never instrumented, so every decision on it is guesswork.

Present findings. Propose a canonical taxonomy. Do not rewrite events until approved.

This skill vs neighbors

SkillOwns
audit-analytics (this)Event coverage, naming, consent-gated firing
plan-privacy-complianceLegal data-flow + store labels; run both when consent is in play
data-visualizationCharts/dashboards as UI — not whether events exist
iterate-post-launchWhat to fix next from existing prod signals
audit-ux-journeysTask completion / IA; may recommend this skill when funnels are blind
workflow-feature-flagFlag rollout; not event taxonomy

Do not fire for "build me a chart" → data-visualization. Do not fire for "GDPR / privacy labels" alone → plan-privacy-compliance (then come back here for the event matrix).

How to reason

  1. Observe — quote the track() / schema name and where it fires
  2. Interpret — can the business answer the funnel question this event claims to answer?
  3. Classify — missing / dead / duplicate / phantom / PII / consent-before-init / correct
  4. Severity — key-funnel step never fired, or analytics before consent = P0

Worked example

Observe: signup success fires signup_completed on web and Signup Success on iOS; PostHog inits in layout.tsx before the consent banner. Interpret: the funnel splits across two names; EU visitors are tracked before consent. Classify: taxonomy split + consent-before-init. Severity: P0 for consent; major for the name split. Finding: Signup Success | duplicate name | unify to signup_completed; init → plan-privacy-compliance + gate behind consent.


Phase 0 — Detect the analytics stack [HIGH freedom]

  • Provider: PostHog / Amplitude / Mixpanel / GA4 / Segment / custom table
  • Where events are defined: central taxonomy vs scattered track() (scattered is itself a finding)
  • Typed schema vs free-form string names
  • Web vs iOS vs Android vs server

Phase 1 — Reconstruct the intended funnel [HIGH freedom]

From the product's core loop, list critical journeys as ordered steps (e.g. install → signup → activation → first value → habit → conversion). For each step, name the event(s) that must fire. This is the yardstick.


Phase 2 — Coverage and correctness [HIGH freedom; consent init = LOW]

Funnel completeness — Each intended step has an event in code. Missing Y means you cannot answer "why drop between X and Y".

Taxonomy — One convention (object_action, case, tense). Mixed names (signup_completed vs Signup Success) fragment analysis. Properties consistent (user_id vs userId).

Dead / duplicate / phantom — Defined never fired; same action twice under different names; fired on render instead of on action.

Property hygiene — Plan tier, platform, source present so cohorts work later.

PII & consent — No raw email/name/address in properties. Analytics SDK gated behind consent — not initialized on boot. Cross-check plan-privacy-compliance for the legal inventory; this skill owns the event-level gate.

Cross-platform parity — Same action → same event name on each client.

Identity — Anonymous → identified stitch after signup. Broken stitch double-counts users.


Definition of Done

  • Intended funnel(s) written with required event per step
  • Each step instrumented or gap logged
  • Naming checked against one convention
  • Dead, duplicate, phantom fires listed
  • PII in properties + consent-gating verified; privacy handoff written
  • Cross-platform parity checked if multi-platform
  • Anonymous→identified stitching verified
  • Nothing rewritten without approval

Self-critique before reporting [LOW freedom — do not skip]

  1. Evidenced — event name + file:line, not "we probably track signup"
  2. Funnel first — every finding maps to a step that must fire
  3. No PII values — report property names, never emails or user ids
  4. Right owner — legal inventory → plan-privacy-compliance
  5. Nothing rewritten — taxonomy proposed, not applied

Output format

  1. Funnel coverage — step | required event | present? | notes
  2. Taxonomy findings — inconsistent/dead/duplicate/phantom | severity | fix
  3. PII/consent — event | problem | handoff to plan-privacy-compliance
  4. Fix plan — taxonomy → missing events → consent gate, severity-ordered

Related

  • plan-privacy-compliance — consent, deletion, store labels (run both)
  • iterate-post-launch — consume a trustworthy data layer
  • audit-ux-journeys — journeys that need funnel evidence
  • data-visualization — rendering metrics, not collecting them
  • workflow-feature-flag — flag exposure events

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.