Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Detects workflow failures and inefficient patterns then files GitHub issues. Use when a workflow step repeatedly fails or produces inconsistent output.
.claude/skills/athola-workflow-monitor/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 106% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 1261% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 204% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 50% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 135% | 0% |
superpowers:systematic-debugging)
sanctum:workflow-improvement)Monitor workflow executions for errors and inefficiencies, automatically creating issues on the detected git platform (GitHub/GitLab) for improvements. Check session context for git_platform: and use Skill(leyline:git-platform) for CLI command mapping.
Workflows should improve over time. When execution issues occur, capturing them systematically enables continuous improvement. This skill hooks into workflow execution to detect problems and propose fixes.
bash# After a failed workflow /workflow-monitor --analyze-last # Monitor a specific workflow execution /workflow-monitor --session <session-id> # Analyze efficiency of recent workflows /workflow-monitor --efficiency-report
When enabled, workflow-monitor observes execution and flags:
| Pattern | Signal | Severity | |---------|--------|----------| | Command failure | Exit code > 0 | High | | Timeout | Exceeded timeout limit | High | | Retry loop | Same command >3 times | Medium | | Context exhaustion | >90% context used | Medium | | Tool misuse | Wrong tool for task | Low |
| Pattern | Signal | Threshold | |---------|--------|-----------| | Verbose output | >1000 lines from command | 500 lines recommended | | Redundant reads | Same file read >2 times | 2 reads max | | Sequential vs parallel | Independent tasks run sequentially | Should parallelize | | Over-fetching | Read entire file when snippet needed | Use offset/limit |
workflow-monitor:capture-complete)workflow-monitor:analysis-complete)workflow-monitor:report-generated)workflow-monitor:issue-created)markdown## Background Detected during workflow execution on [DATE]. **Source:** [workflow name] session [session-id] ## Problem [Description of the error or inefficiency] **Evidence:**
Command that failed or was inefficient] Output excerpt]
## Suggested Fix
[What should change to prevent this]
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] [Specific fix criterion]
- [ ] Tests added for new behavior
- [ ] Documentation updated
---
*Created automatically by workflow-monitor*yaml# .workflow-monitor.yaml enabled: true auto_create_issues: false # Require approval before creating severity_threshold: "medium" # Only report medium+ severity efficiency_threshold: 0.7 # Flag workflows below 70% efficiency detection: command_failures: true timeouts: true retry_loops: true context_exhaustion: true tool_misuse: true efficiency: verbose_output_limit: 500 max_file_reads: 2 parallel_detection: true
auto_create_issues: trueworkflow-monitor:capture-completeworkflow-monitor:analysis-completeworkflow-monitor:report-generatedworkflow-monitor:issue-created (if issue created)imbue:proof-of-work: Captures execution evidencesanctum:fix-workflow: Implements suggested fixesmarkdown## Workflow Efficiency Report **Session:** [session-id] **Duration:** 12m 34s **Efficiency Score:** 0.72 (72%) ### Issues Detected | Type | Count | Impact | |------|-------|--------| | Verbose output | 3 | Medium | | Redundant reads | 2 | Low | | Sequential tasks | 1 | Medium | ### Recommendations 1. Use `--quiet` flags for npm/pip commands 2. Cache file contents instead of re-reading 3. Parallelize independent file operations ### Create Issues? - [ ] Issue 1: Verbose output from npm install - [ ] Issue 2: Redundant file reads in validation
imbue:proof-of-work: Evidence capture methodologysanctum:fix-workflow: Workflow improvement commandStatus: Skeleton implementation. Requires:
capture-complete,analysis-complete, report-generated, and (if an issue is created) issue-created
command that failed or was inefficient plus an output excerpt
gh issue list --search beforecreating any issue; duplicate suppressed and existing issue URL reported instead
how many anomalies are detected; rate limit enforced
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 4,809 | 5,376 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 318 | 1,882 | +492% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 12,340 | 14,637 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,909 | 3,927 | +106% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 3,863 | 6,569 | +70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 211 | 1,896 | +799% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 4,229 | 8,772 | +107% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 218 | 2,966 | +1261% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 12,129 | 2,711 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,251 | 1,946 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 8,868 | 14,144 | +59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,644 | 4,361 | +165% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 4,299 | 2,797 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 647 | 1,966 | +204% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 8,634 | 2,706 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,289 | 1,932 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 6,588 | 3,035 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,002 | 2,054 | +105% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 5,220 | 2,613 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 857 | 2,018 | +135% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 8,344 | 3,531 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,330 | 2,136 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 9,531 | 2,871 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,409 | 2,028 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 6,988 | 1,972 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,188 | 1,868 | +57% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 6,480 | 1,777 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,040 | 1,823 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 9,934 | 2,156 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,499 | 1,879 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 16,196 | 2,256 | -86% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,170 | 1,819 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,405 | 3,767 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,607 | 2,201 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 6,056 | 2,426 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 974 | 1,919 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 6,131 | 4,204 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 971 | 1,810 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 6,197 | 1,749 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 964 | 1,847 | +92% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 11,313 | 2,063 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,762 | 1,816 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 7,071 | 4,001 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,075 | 2,200 | +105% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 19 counted toward the lift figure. The other 3 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +36 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.