Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when the user wants to act on an audit, fix the findings in a line-check/bug-hunt/security-sweep report, work a prioritized backlog, or asks to "fix the findings", "work the backlog", "clear the audit", or "do the high-leverage items". The step after the audit trio.
.claude/skills/escoffier-labs-expedite/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-21 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 15% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 1% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 49% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 906% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 8% | 0% |
The expeditor at the pass drives tickets from the board to plated, in priority order, and lets nothing leave half-cooked. This skill takes an audit backlog (from line-check, bug-hunt, security-sweep, latent-premises, or retry-safety) and executes it: highest-leverage finding first, one focused change at a time, each one verified before the next is started.
The audit roster is read-only on purpose. This is the separate step it hands off to. Findings already carry severity, effort, location, and a fix. The work is execution discipline, not re-analysis.
Check before touching anything; stop and report if any fail:
## Backlog section, or ## Findings to sort yourself). No report? Run line-check, bug-hunt, security-sweep, latent-premises, or retry-safety first, do not freelance.expedite/<audit>-<date>).Work the backlog in leverage order (impact relative to effort), the order the report already sorted. If the report has only a ## Findings section and no ## Backlog, sort it yourself first: cheap high-impact items float to the top, severity breaks ties. An L-effort finding that cannot land in one focused session is not a half-job: attempt it only if it is cleanly isolable, otherwise surface it under Remaining with an estimate rather than leaving the tree mid-change.
For each finding:
If a fix resists you, that the problem will not verify gone after two focused attempts, do not commit a non-fix. Revert the partial change and move the finding to Remaining with what you tried, so the tree stays clean for the next finding.
When done with the runnable items, land the work: run the full suite one last time, then present the merge-or-PR options to the user and clean up the branch.
A finding is out of bounds for autonomous execution when its fix would be destructive, public-facing, paid, hard to reverse, a breaking API change, or genuinely ambiguous in a way the report does not settle. Park it, leave it unstarted, note why at the top of the output, and keep going on the rest. The user decides the parked ones.
markdown## expedite: <repo> (<date>) Branch: <branch> ### Parked (need a decision) - [SEVERITY] title - why it is out of bounds for autonomous fixing ### Fixed - [SEVERITY] title - what changed (<commit>) ### Skipped (already resolved) - title - found already fixed at <where> ### Remaining - anything left and why **Next:** re-run <audit-skill> to confirm, then finish the branch.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-21 | fail→pass | 10,589 | 4,746 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,777 | 2,048 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 4,621 | 9,835 | +113% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 410 | 1,754 | +328% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 16,598 | 12,581 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 184 | 1,582 | +760% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 5,254 | 4,932 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 216 | 1,490 | +590% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 11,990 | 7,012 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,534 | 2,137 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 7,883 | 6,602 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,501 | 1,608 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 20,291 | 27,551 | +36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,704 | 6,313 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 12,016 | 9,373 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,987 | 2,015 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 2,891 | 12,436 | +330% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 381 | 2,455 | +544% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 4,513 | 12,228 | +171% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 660 | 3,140 | +376% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 7,624 | 3,492 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,217 | 1,813 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 5,198 | 6,293 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 201 | 1,575 | +684% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 10,796 | 5,702 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,017 | 1,536 | -24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 6,941 | 1,999 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,014 | 1,530 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 3,599 | 7,175 | +99% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 246 | 2,474 | +906% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 14,094 | 7,278 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,268 | 1,779 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 9,868 | 3,386 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,700 | 1,831 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 4,897 | 3,187 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 747 | 1,707 | +129% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→fail | 20,583 | 4,164 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,465 | 1,958 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 9,261 | 3,513 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,394 | 1,707 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 8,408 | 3,014 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,375 | 1,759 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 10,677 | 4,081 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,843 | 1,805 | -2% | 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 16 counted toward the lift figure. The other 6 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 +32 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 16 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are 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.
| Model | Method | Date | Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | verified | 8/6/2026 | +23% |
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.