Agent skill

contributor-analyzer

Analyzes engineering contributors for annual reviews, progress tracking, and production ownership. Reads every commit diff (not sampling), calculates accuracy rates, assesses engineering maturity through qualitative judgment, and generates promotion-ready performance reviews. Works with any git repository using local git for commit analysis and gh CLI for GitHub PR/review metadata.

Stars 163
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/data/contributor-analyzer

Metadata

Additional technical details for this skill

tags
contributor-analysis annual-review code-quality production-ownership promotion engineering-maturity
author
anivar
version
1.0.0

SKILL.md

Contributor Analyzer

Unified skill for engineering contributor analysis. Combines annual review generation, historical progress tracking, production ownership mapping, and qualitative judgment — all driven by reading actual commit diffs.

Skill Format

Each reference file covers one analysis concern:

  • Quick Reference: Summary tables and key thresholds
  • Process Steps: Bash commands and orchestration
  • Templates: Output formats for reports and profiles
  • Deep Dive: Full context with examples from real-world 1,091-commit analysis

Impact ratings: CRITICAL (blocks accuracy), HIGH (major insight), MEDIUM (enriches analysis)

When to Apply

Reference these guidelines when:

  • Running annual or quarterly performance reviews
  • Assessing promotion readiness with evidence
  • Tracking contributor progress over time (incremental updates)
  • Mapping production code ownership and risk
  • Comparing multiple engineers for team decisions
  • Identifying single points of failure in codebase ownership

Priority-Ordered References

Priority Reference Impact Description
1 agent-context-management.md CRITICAL Batch sizing, file-based output, context budget
2 annual-review-process.md CRITICAL 7-phase analysis: identity, metrics, diffs, bugs, quality, report, comparison
3 accuracy-analysis.md HIGH Bug introduction detection, accuracy rate calculation, benchmarks
4 code-quality-catalog.md HIGH Anti-pattern catalog (9 patterns) and strength catalog (8 patterns)
5 qualitative-judgment.md HIGH Engineering wisdom, situational decisions, growth trajectory
6 report-templates.md HIGH Report sections, rating scale, promotion framework, comparison format
7 production-ownership.md MEDIUM Production branch ownership, domain map, SPOF detection
8 historical-progress.md MEDIUM Incremental profiles, plateau detection, period-over-period tracking

Quick Reference

Critical: Context Management

Before launching ANY analysis, count commits:

bash
git log --author="EMAIL" --after="YEAR-01-01" --before="YEAR+1-01-01" --oneline | wc -l

Batch sizing (hard limits from real failures):

Commits Action
1-40 Read in main session
41-70 Single sub-task, writes findings to file
71-90 Split into 2 sub-tasks
91+ WILL FAIL — split into 3+ or monthly sub-tasks

Sub-tasks write to files, return 3-line summaries. Never return raw analysis inline.

Critical: Annual Review Process

7 phases, sequential:

  1. Identity Discovery — find all git email variants
  2. Metrics — commits, PRs, reviews, lines (git + gh CLI)
  3. Read ALL Diffs — quarterly parallel sub-tasks, file-based output
  4. Bug Introduction — self-reverts, crash-fixes, same-day fixes, hook bypass
  5. Code Quality — anti-patterns and strengths from diff reading
  6. Report Generation — structured markdown with rating + promotion assessment
  7. Comparison — multi-engineer ranking with evidence

High: Accuracy Rate

Effective Accuracy = 100% - (fix-related commits / total commits)
Rate Assessment
>90% Excellent
85-90% Good
80-85% Concerning
<80% Poor — significant rework

High: Tool Separation

  • Local git: ALL commit-level analysis (log, show, diff, blame, shortlog)
  • gh CLI: ONLY for PR counts, review counts, user verification
  • Never use gh to read diffs — local git is faster with no rate limits

References

Full documentation with process steps and templates in references/:

Analysis Process

File Impact Description
annual-review-process.md CRITICAL Complete 7-phase review process with bash commands
agent-context-management.md CRITICAL Batch sizing, file-based output, multi-engineer orchestration
accuracy-analysis.md HIGH Bug detection commands, accuracy formula, benchmarks
code-quality-catalog.md HIGH 9 anti-patterns + 8 strengths with severity/significance

Judgment & Assessment

File Impact Description
qualitative-judgment.md HIGH Engineering wisdom indicators, growth trajectory, promotion signals
report-templates.md HIGH Required report sections, rating scale, comparison format

Ownership & Progress

File Impact Description
production-ownership.md MEDIUM Production file identification, domain map, SPOF detection
historical-progress.md MEDIUM Incremental profiles, plateau detection, cumulative profiles

Searching References

bash
# Find by keyword
grep -rl "accuracy" references/
grep -rl "promotion" references/
grep -rl "ownership" references/
grep -rl "anti-pattern" references/

Problem to Reference Mapping

Problem Start With
Annual review for 1 engineer annual-review-process.md then report-templates.md
Comparing 2+ engineers for promotion annual-review-process.md then qualitative-judgment.md
Engineer has 200+ commits agent-context-management.md (read FIRST)
Session keeps running out of context agent-context-management.md
Is this engineer ready for promotion? qualitative-judgment.md then accuracy-analysis.md
Who owns the payment system? production-ownership.md
Track progress since last review historical-progress.md
Quality assessment from code code-quality-catalog.md then accuracy-analysis.md
Single points of failure in team production-ownership.md
Plateau detection historical-progress.md

Full Compiled Document

For the complete guide with all references expanded: AGENTS.md

Usage Examples

# Annual review (single engineer)
Analyze @alice for 2025 annual review in repo org/repo.
Git email: alice@company.com. Write to ./alice-2025-review.md

# Multi-engineer comparison with promotion decision
Analyze @alice, @bob, @charlie for 2025 reviews.
I need to decide which 2 get promoted.

# Production ownership mapping
Analyze production code ownership in this repo.

# Incremental progress update
Update @alice's progress profile with latest contributions.

# Critical path risk detection
Find single points of failure in production code ownership.

# Plateau detection
Has @bob plateaued? Check last 3 quarters.

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results