Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.
.claude/skills/automation-audit-ops/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-13 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | — | — |
| case-19 | ✗→✗ | ＝ Same ✗ | — | — |
Use this when the user asks what automations are live, which jobs are broken, where overlap exists, or what tooling and connectors are actually doing useful work right now.
This is an audit-first operator skill. The job is to produce an evidence-backed inventory and a keep / merge / cut / fix-next recommendation set before rewriting anything.
Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
workspace-surface-audit for connector, MCP, hook, and app inventoryknowledge-ops when the audit needs to reconcile live repo truth with durable contextgithub-ops when the answer depends on CI, scheduled workflows, issues, or PR automationecc-tools-cost-audit when the real problem is webhook fanout, queued jobs, or billing burn in the sibling app reporesearch-ops when local inventory must be compared against current platform support or public docsverification-loop for proving post-fix state instead of relying on assumed recoveryRead the current live surface before theorizing:
Group them by surface:
For every surfaced automation, mark:
Then classify the problem type:
Back every important claim with a concrete source:
If the current state is ambiguous, say so directly instead of pretending the audit is complete.
For each overlapping or suspect surface, return one call:
The value is in collapsing noisy automation into one canonical ECC lane, not in preserving every historical path.
textCURRENT SURFACE - automation - source - live state - proof FINDINGS - active breakage - overlap - stale status - missing capability RECOMMENDATION - keep - merge - cut - fix next NEXT ECC MOVE - exact skill / hook / workflow / app lane to strengthen
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 17 counted toward the lift figure. The other 5 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 +14 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 17 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.