Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Track score trajectories, detect saturation/failure points — 15 benchmarks, 50 papers, 60 web searches
.claude/skills/yogsoth-ai-saturation-analysis/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 15% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -15% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 44% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 33% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 36% | 0% |
Track benchmark score trajectories over time to detect saturation signals, ceiling effects, and inflection points that indicate a benchmark has lost discriminative power.
Determine which benchmarks are approaching or have reached saturation, quantify remaining headroom, estimate time-to-ceiling, and identify the specific failure modes that remain unsolved even at high aggregate scores.
| Resource | Floor | Target | |----------|-------|--------| | Benchmarks analyzed | 10 | 15 | | Papers read | 35 | 50 | | Web searches | 40 | 60 |
<HARD-GATE>
| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|--------|---------|--------|--------|
| Benchmarks analyzed | 0 | 15 | PENDING |
| Score trajectories built | 0 | 15 | PENDING |
| Papers fetched | 0 | 50 | PENDING |
| Papers read | 0 | 35 | PENDING |
| Web searches | 0 | 60 | PENDING |
| Saturation detections run | 0 | 15 | PENDING |
| Leaderboard analyses done | 0 | 10 | PENDING |
| Failure mode catalogs built | 0 | 5 | PENDING |
</HARD-GATE>Cannot exit until 80% of all targets met.
a. Search leaderboards (Papers With Code, official sites) for historical scores b. Collect papers reporting SOTA results chronologically c. Note human baselines, random baselines, and theoretical ceilings
a. Run score-trajectory-analysis tactic to build time-series and fit curves b. Run saturation-detection to classify saturation status c. Run leaderboard-dynamics-analysis for score compression analysis
yamlsaturation_report: benchmark_name: string saturation_status: pre-saturation|approaching|saturated|supersaturated current_sota: float human_baseline: float theoretical_ceiling: float headroom_remaining: float estimated_time_to_ceiling: string # e.g., "6-12 months" inflection_points: list[{date, score, cause}] score_compression: float # top-10 score range remaining_hard_subsets: list[string] successor_benchmarks: list[string]
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | score-trajectory-analysis | Collect historical scores, fit saturation curves, detect inflection points |
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | benchmark-synthesis | Produce final structured audit report | | knowledge-acquisition-benchmark-inventory | Identify and catalog all relevant benchmarks in target domain | | knowledge-acquisition-saturation-detection | Determine when additional searching yields diminishing returns. Analyzes the latest expansion batch against existing corpus to judge continue/near-saturation/saturated. Used by snowball and systematic-survey. | | leaderboard-dynamics-analysis | Analyze leaderboard score distributions, compression, selective reporting | | metric-decomposition | Decompose composite metrics into constituent signals, analyze polarity and ceiling effects |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-05 | pass→pass | 17,603 | 17,026 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,209 | 3,167 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 41,253 | 23,250 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 7,134 | 2,059 | -71% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 50,038 | 24,557 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,289 | 1,900 | -77% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 44,503 | 62,484 | +40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,288 | 2,319 | -72% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 30,146 | 49,905 | +66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,353 | 9,202 | +72% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 15,354 | 18,460 | +20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,962 | 3,421 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | 31,777 | 87,307 | +175% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,320 | 9,195 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 6,708 | 8,026 | +20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,306 | 1,500 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 20,298 | 23,407 | +15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,361 | 1,900 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 22,215 | 14,670 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,252 | 2,760 | -15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 19,184 | 13,855 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,348 | 3,372 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 17,728 | 23,495 | +33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,360 | 4,458 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 15,997 | 28,185 | +76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,493 | 3,400 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 16,005 | 7,390 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,822 | 1,323 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 19,208 | 21,014 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,360 | 3,715 | +57% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 23,807 | 4,521 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,747 | 1,689 | -39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 18,429 | 11,314 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,162 | 2,087 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 24,499 | 13,816 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,060 | 2,625 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 24,942 | 12,982 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,546 | 2,349 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 12,397 | 7,925 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,292 | 1,349 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 16,386 | 7,400 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,041 | 1,426 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 12,115 | 8,198 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,125 | 1,474 | +31% | 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 +55 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.