Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Execute Juicebox enrichment and outreach workflow. Trigger: "juicebox enrich", "candidate enrichment", "talent pool".
.claude/skills/jeremylongshore-juicebox-core-workflow-b/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -1% | 0% |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 1% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 55% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 26% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -28% | 0% |
Build custom queries, apply multi-dimensional filters, and run cross-dataset analysis on your Juicebox people-intelligence data. Use this workflow when you need to go beyond standard search — comparing candidate pools across roles, analyzing skill density by geography, or identifying talent trends over time. This is the secondary workflow; for basic search and enrichment, see juicebox-core-workflow-a.
typescriptconst query = await client.analysis.query({ dataset: 'candidates', filters: [ { field: 'skills', operator: 'contains_any', value: ['TypeScript', 'Rust', 'Go'] }, { field: 'experience_years', operator: 'gte', value: 5 }, { field: 'location.country', operator: 'eq', value: 'US' }, ], sort: { field: 'relevance_score', order: 'desc' }, limit: 100, }); console.log(`Found ${query.total} candidates matching filters`); query.results.forEach(c => console.log(` ${c.name} — ${c.title} (${c.relevance_score}/100)`) );
typescriptconst comparison = await client.analysis.compare({ datasets: ['candidates_q1_2026', 'candidates_q4_2025'], group_by: 'primary_skill', metrics: ['count', 'avg_experience', 'avg_salary_estimate'], }); comparison.groups.forEach(g => console.log(`${g.skill}: Q1=${g.datasets[0].count} vs Q4=${g.datasets[1].count} (${g.delta > 0 ? '+' : ''}${g.delta}%)`) );
typescriptconst density = await client.analysis.aggregate({ dataset: 'candidates', group_by: 'location.metro_area', metric: 'skill_density', skill_filter: ['ML Engineering', 'Data Science'], top_n: 10, }); density.regions.forEach(r => console.log(`${r.metro}: ${r.candidate_count} candidates, density=${r.density_score}`) );
typescriptconst exportJob = await client.analysis.export({ query_id: query.id, format: 'csv', fields: ['name', 'email', 'primary_skill', 'experience_years', 'location'], }); console.log(`Export ready: ${exportJob.download_url} (${exportJob.row_count} rows)`);
| Issue | Cause | Fix | |-------|-------|-----| | 400 Invalid filter | Unsupported operator for field type | Check field schema with client.schema.fields() | | 404 Dataset not found | Stale dataset ID or typo | List datasets with client.datasets.list() | | 408 Query timeout | Too many filters on large dataset | Add limit or narrow date range | | 429 Rate limited | Exceeded analysis quota | Implement backoff; check plan limits | | Partial comparison data | One dataset has sparse coverage | Expected — use include_nulls: true for completeness |
A successful workflow produces filtered candidate lists with relevance scores, cross-dataset comparison tables showing talent market shifts, and regional skill-density rankings. Results can be exported as CSV for downstream reporting.
See juicebox-sdk-patterns for authentication and query builder helpers.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 14,613 | 10,294 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,918 | 1,905 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 16,001 | 4,884 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,739 | 1,762 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 45,709 | 7,843 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,580 | 2,454 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 15,786 | 11,467 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,790 | 2,262 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 16,380 | 11,903 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,054 | 2,104 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 16,607 | 5,128 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,110 | 1,678 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 19,733 | 10,542 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,487 | 1,788 | -28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 14,903 | 7,648 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,701 | 2,295 | -15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 16,499 | 9,874 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,539 | 1,807 | -29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 19,999 | 10,968 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,377 | 1,897 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 18,220 | 9,790 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,456 | 2,643 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 16,487 | 8,272 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,902 | 1,344 | -29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 16,779 | 9,226 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,129 | 1,646 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 14,603 | 8,490 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,829 | 1,537 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 16,630 | 4,394 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,103 | 1,716 | -18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 9,575 | 4,012 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,668 | 1,588 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 9,391 | 2,774 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,762 | 1,392 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 12,776 | 4,352 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,331 | 1,719 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 16,514 | 2,617 | -84% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,922 | 1,322 | -31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 13,359 | 2,601 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,390 | 1,344 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 9,466 | 7,924 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,646 | 1,381 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 18,574 | 7,993 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,161 | 1,267 | -41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | 15,514 | 3,019 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,689 | 1,443 | -46% | 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. 23 cases were attempted, and 22 counted toward the lift figure. The other 1 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 +70 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.