oncall-review
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Score the quality of an on-call or first-responder shift based on issue completeness, handoff quality, and engagement signals. Use when reviewing a completed on-call shift or generating team metrics.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- setupSkill
- enrich-prsSkill
- epic-cleanupSkill
- epic-overviewSkill
- sprint-managementSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- team-activitySkill
- team-data-syncSkill
- direct-report-prepSkill
- interview-analysisSkill
- interview-prepSkill
- peer-prepSkill
- project-statusSkill
- team-analysisSkill
- today-prioritiesSkill
- weekly-snippetSkill
- bus-factorSkill
- contribution-velocitySkill
- nine-boxSkill
- project-people-mapSkill
- review-cardsSkill
- review-cyclesSkill
- review-networkSkill
- team-health-reportSkill
- task-rolloverSkill
- context-checkSkill
- prep-my-daySkill
- initiative-breakdownSkill
- product-briefSkill
- technical-deep-diveSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 37
Handoff: look for a handoff comment or section
- Distinctive: line 62
Incident response: If incidents fired, were they triaged promptly?
- Distinctive: line 66
Write a summary (to the vault or inline, depending on context):
- Distinctive: line 87
If maintaining a tracking doc, append this to the historical record.
- Distinctive: line 103
Flag data issues: If the issue body appears truncated (common with long checklists), note which criteria couldn't be assessed.
≈ “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.
Files
On-Call Quality Review
Evaluate the quality of a completed on-call (or first-responder) shift by scoring against a rubric. Produces a star rating and qualitative assessment.
When to use
- "How was this week's on-call?", "rate the FR shift", "on-call quality check"
- As part of periodic team health reviews
Prerequisites
- A GitHub issue tracking the on-call shift (typically auto-created with a checklist template)
- Access to the issue via
ghCLI - A scoring rubric stored in the vault (location from setup config)
Process
Step 1: Fetch the shift issue
gh issue view {number} --repo {org}/{team-repo} --json title,body,comments,labels,assignees,createdAt,closedAtExtract:
- Assignee: who was on-call
- Checklist items: count total, count checked
- Comments: count total, assess quality (see below)
- Handoff: look for a handoff comment or section
Step 2: Score against rubric
Apply the scoring rubric. A reasonable default rubric:
| Criterion | Points | How to assess |
| Checklist completion ≥ 20% | +1 | Count checked / total checkboxes |
| Checklist completion ≥ 50% | +1 | Same |
| Comments ≥ 3 | +1 | Count non-bot comments |
| Comments ≥ 6 | +1 | Same |
| Handoff completed | +1 | Look for a handoff comment, section, or linked handoff issue |
Maximum score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Teams should customize this rubric to match their expectations. Store it in the vault (e.g., Areas/Team Metrics/On-Call Quality Rubric.md).
Step 3: Qualitative assessment
Beyond the raw score, assess:
- Investigation quality: Did comments show actual debugging (Splunk queries, Sentry links, SLO analysis)? Or just "acknowledged, auto-resolved"?
- Checklist engagement: Were unchecked items skipped because they didn't apply, or because they were missed?
- Handoff quality: Does the handoff give the next person enough context to start without spelunking? Or is it "nothing happened this week"?
- Incident response: If incidents fired, were they triaged promptly? Is there follow-up documented?
Step 4: Output
Write a summary (to the vault or inline, depending on context):
### On-Call Review: @{assignee} ({date_range})
**Score: ⭐⭐⭐** (3/5)
| Criterion | Result |
|-----------|--------|
| Checkboxes ≥ 20% | ✅ (47%) |
| Checkboxes ≥ 50% | ❌ (47%) |
| Comments ≥ 3 | ✅ (3) |
| Comments ≥ 6 | ❌ (3) |
| Handoff | ⚠️ Partial |
**Notes:**
- Investigation quality was above average (detailed SLO breakdown with monitoring links)
- Checkbox completion hurt by [reason if identifiable]
- Handoff was [complete/partial/missing]: [specifics]If maintaining a tracking doc, append this to the historical record.
Rubric customization
The default rubric above is a starting point. Teams should adjust based on:
- Shift type: On-call vs. first-responder may have different expectations
- Team size: Smaller teams may have fewer incidents and lower comment baselines
- Maturity: New teams should start with lower thresholds and raise them over time
Store the active rubric in the vault so the team can see and iterate on it.
Rules
- Score the shift, not the person. The review assesses the quality of the work product, not the individual. Frame feedback constructively.
- Account for quiet weeks. A low score during a genuinely quiet week (no incidents, no alerts) should be noted as context, not penalized.
- Flag data issues. If the issue body appears truncated (common with long checklists), note which criteria couldn't be assessed.
- Be honest. A 2-star shift is a 2-star shift. Don't inflate scores to be nice, but do explain what would have made it better.
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
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.

