team-analysis
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate a team activity report for a date range. Analyzes PR volume, review patterns, project distribution, and individual contributions. Use for monthly reports, quarterly reviews, or ad-hoc team health checks.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- PuckAPI/claude-sports-analyticstheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- PuckAPI/claude-sports-analytics★ 3same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- setupSkill
- enrich-prsSkill
- epic-cleanupSkill
- epic-overviewSkill
- oncall-reviewSkill
- sprint-managementSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- team-activitySkill
- team-data-syncSkill
- direct-report-prepSkill
- interview-analysisSkill
- interview-prepSkill
- peer-prepSkill
- project-statusSkill
- 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, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 39
Read the relevant JSON files from data/YYYY-MM/ directories.
- Distinctive: line 62
Write a markdown report:
- Distinctive: line 114
Data first: If data isn't fetched for the requested range, fetch it before analyzing.
- Distinctive: line 115
No ranking or stack-ranking: Don't compare members against each other.
- Distinctive: line 118
Fiscal year awareness: If the team uses a non-standard fiscal year (e.g., Q1 = Jul-Sep), respect that mapping from the team roster config.
≈ “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
Team Analysis
Generate an activity report analyzing team contributions over a date range. Combines fetched GitHub data with vault context to produce a narrative report.
When to use
- "Analyze team last month", "team report for Q3", "how did the team do in April?"
- "Analyze {member} last 2 weeks" (individual focus)
Prerequisites
- Fetched team activity data in
data/YYYY-MM/(useteam-activityskill if missing) - Team roster (
team.json)
Process
Step 1: Resolve the date range
Parse the request into concrete dates. Support:
| Request | Resolution |
| "analyze team 2026-05" | May 1-31 |
| "analyze team last 2 weeks" | 14 days back from today |
| "analyze {member}" | Check reports/index.json for last report covering this member; analyze from that date to now |
| "analyze {member} last week" | Last 7 days |
Step 2: Load data
Read the relevant JSON files from data/YYYY-MM/ directories. If data is missing for the requested range, fetch it first using the team-activity skill.
Step 3: Analyze
Team-level metrics:
- Total PRs authored, merged, and reviewed
- PR distribution by repo (where is work happening?)
- Review coverage (who's reviewing whose work?)
- Issue throughput (opened vs. closed)
Individual-level metrics:
- PRs authored and merged (count and titles)
- Reviews given (count and to whom)
- Issues closed
- Notable patterns: breadth across repos, review depth, velocity trends
Qualitative observations:
- Project momentum: which projects are moving fast vs. stalled?
- Collaboration patterns: is everyone reviewing, or is it concentrated?
- Risk signals: anyone with zero reviews? Anyone with lots of open but few merged?
Step 4: Generate report
Write a markdown report:
# Team Activity Report: {date_range}
## Summary
- {N} PRs authored ({M} merged) across {R} repositories
- {X} reviews given, {Y} issues closed
- Top contributors: ...
## By Project
### {Project/Repo Name}
- Key PRs and what they accomplished
- Who worked on it
## By Member
### {Member Name}
- PRs: [list with links]
- Reviews: [count, notable ones]
- Observations: [patterns, recognition, concerns]
## Observations
- [Cross-cutting patterns, collaboration health, risk signals]Step 5: Save and index
- Save report to
reports/directory with descriptive filename:- Team:
analysis-team-YYYY-MM.md - Individual:
analysis-{login}-YYYY-MM.md
- Team:
- Update
reports/index.json:
{
"reports": [
{
"id": "rpt-{timestamp}",
"type": "team|individual",
"member": "{login or null}",
"from": "YYYY-MM-DD",
"to": "YYYY-MM-DD",
"file": "analysis-....md",
"generated_at": "ISO-8601"
}
]
}This index lets future "analyze {member}" calls pick up where the last report left off.
Rules
- Data first. If data isn't fetched for the requested range, fetch it before analyzing. Don't guess.
- No ranking or stack-ranking. Don't compare members against each other. Analyze each person's contributions on their own merits.
- Context matters. Someone with 2 PRs who shipped a complex migration is more notable than someone with 15 trivial dependency bumps. Weight quality over quantity.
- Flag what you can't see. GitHub data misses meetings, design work, mentoring, code review depth, and cross-team coordination. Note these gaps.
- Fiscal year awareness. If the team uses a non-standard fiscal year (e.g., Q1 = Jul-Sep), respect that mapping from the team roster config.
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.

