Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Guides agents through creating and safely sizing a Replay Vision scanner: choosing the scanner type (monitor/classifier/scorer/summarizer), shaping the RecordingsQuery that selects sessions, and — crucially — estimating observation volume and checking the org's monthly quota before creating, so a broad scanner doesn't exhaust the budget on its first scheduled sweep. TRIGGER when: user asks to crea
.claude/skills/kunanonj-cursor-plugin-posthog-creating-replay-vision-scanners/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 10% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 87% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 28% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 229% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 44% | 0% |
A scanner is a standing LLM probe over session recordings. Once created and enabled, it runs on a Temporal schedule that sweeps every 5 minutes, applying its prompt to each new matching recording and recording the result as an observation (a queryable $recording_observed event). Each observation counts against a monthly org quota (a fixed number of observations per calendar month).
That schedule is exactly why creation needs a gut-check: a scanner with a permissive query and full sampling starts consuming quota automatically and can drain the whole month's budget within its first few sweeps. Creation itself does not check quota — that protection only kicks in at observation time, by which point the budget may already be gone.
Never create an enabled scanner blind. Estimate its volume, check remaining quota, and — when the projected volume is a meaningful fraction of what's left — show the user the numbers and get confirmation before creating. This is the heart of the skill; the rest is supporting detail.
Pick a scanner_type and write its scanner_config. Every type needs a prompt; the rest is type-specific:
| Type | What it produces | scanner_config shape | | ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | monitor | Open-ended observation against a prompt (e.g. "flag rage clicks") | {"prompt": "..."} | | classifier | Assigns tags from a fixed label set | {"prompt": "...", "tags": ["tag-a", "tag-b"]} — tags needs ≥1 entry; optional "multi_label": true, "allow_freeform_tags": false | | scorer | Numeric score on a rubric | {"prompt": "...", "scale": {"min": 1, "max": 5, "label": "frustration"}} — min < max; label optional | | summarizer | Free-text summary; optional facet embeddings for search | {"prompt": "..."}; optional "length": "short" \| "medium" \| "long" (default "medium"), "emits_embeddings": false |
scanner_type is locked after creation — to change it you delete and recreate, so confirm the type is right up front, and get the scanner_config shape right (a wrong shape is a create error, not a silent default).
If the user's intent makes the type and prompt obvious, just proceed — don't interrogate them.
The query is a RecordingsQuery shape that selects which recordings the scanner watches. date_from and date_to are ignored (the schedule controls time), so don't bother setting them. Narrow the query to the sessions that actually matter — by event, URL, person property, duration, etc. A narrow query is the single biggest lever on cost.
sampling_rate (0..1, default 1.0) is a random downsample applied _after_ the query matches. Lower it to trade coverage for budget.
Before creating, run both checks and reason about them together:
vision-scanners-estimate-create with the proposed query + sampling_rate.It returns matched_sessions_in_window, the window_days measured, and estimated_observations_per_month.
vision-quota-retrieve for remaining and exhausted against the org's monthlymonthly_quota.
Then decide:
estimated_observations_per_month comfortably fits within remaining, proceed.remaining, stop and tell the user the concrete numbers— e.g. "This scanner is projected to produce ~X observations/month; you have Y of Z left this month." — and confirm before creating, or suggest tightening the query or lowering sampling_rate first.
exhausted, say so — a new enabled scanner won't produce anything until the quotaresets, and its observations will be silently skipped.
Confirmation here is a conversation step, not an API capability — surface the trade-off and let the user choose. When the projected volume is clearly small relative to the budget, you don't need to ask.
Call vision-scanners-create. Minimal example:
json{ "name": "Rage click monitor", "scanner_type": "monitor", "scanner_config": { "prompt": "Flag sessions where the user repeatedly clicks the same element in frustration." }, "query": { "kind": "RecordingsQuery", "events": [{ "id": "$rageclick", "type": "events" }] }, "sampling_rate": 1.0, "model": "gemini-3-flash-preview", "enabled": true }
name must be unique within the team. Set enabled: false if the user wants to create it paused (no schedule, no quota consumption) and turn it on later.
them with vision-scanners-observations-list for one scanner over time, or vision-observations-list (requires session_id) for every scanner's findings on a single session. To dig into a recording, hand off to the investigating-replay skill.
vision-scanners-update is a partial update — send only changed fields. Re-run the Step 3 gut-check whenever you widen scope: a broader query or a higher sampling_rate raises the sweep volume just like a fresh broad scanner would. Toggling enabled, tweaking the prompt, or narrowing the query don't need a re-estimate. Editing config bumps scanner_version; past observations keep a snapshot of the old config.
failed or ineligible one — is a no-op and won't produce a fresh scan.
ineligible (e.g. too_short, no_recording) — a terminalnon-error outcome. Check error_reason when triaging why a scanner produced nothing.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 10,101 | 7,881 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,421 | 2,131 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 12,547 | 4,945 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,927 | 1,662 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 10,670 | 2,939 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,099 | 1,893 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 15,171 | 10,437 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,981 | 3,286 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 7,994 | 6,574 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,612 | 3,012 | +87% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 9,887 | 4,164 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,824 | 2,342 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 3,917 | 3,148 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 639 | 2,103 | +229% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 7,703 | 4,421 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,302 | 2,267 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 7,542 | 2,368 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,434 | 2,062 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 11,624 | 4,554 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,001 | 2,482 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 7,553 | 3,684 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,137 | 2,350 | +107% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 9,049 | 4,094 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,313 | 2,242 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 6,363 | 1,684 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,188 | 1,927 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 7,845 | 3,416 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,228 | 2,251 | +83% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 8,838 | 2,707 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,467 | 2,020 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 7,424 | 1,760 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,178 | 1,835 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 5,412 | 2,554 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 968 | 2,050 | +112% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 5,783 | 2,241 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,142 | 1,945 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 5,771 | 2,821 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,101 | 1,927 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | 3,821 | 4,371 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 629 | 2,407 | +283% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 3,357 | 2,517 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 650 | 2,122 | +226% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 8,743 | 4,894 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,405 | 2,462 | +75% | 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 +45 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 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.