productivity-score
The productivity-score Claude Code skill calculates a weighted scorecard (0–100) from Claude Code Agent Monitor telemetry, analyzing completion rates, token efficiency via cache metrics, tool success ratios, session velocity, and cost-per-completion across user-specified time periods or individual sessions. Use it to benchmark agent performance, identify bottlenecks in tool reliability or token usage, track cost trends, and compare productivity across different time windows or workflow types.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hoangsonww/Claude-Code-Agent-Monitor /tmp/productivity-score && cp -r /tmp/productivity-score/plugins/ccam-analytics/skills/productivity-score ~/.claude/skills/productivity-scoreSKILL.md
# Productivity Score
Calculate a productivity scorecard from the Agent Monitor's real data.
## Input
The user provides: **$ARGUMENTS**
Options: "today", "this week", "last 30 days", a session ID, or "compare" for period comparison.
## Data Sources
| Endpoint | Returns |
|----------|---------|
| `GET /api/analytics` | Token totals (`total_input`, `total_output`, `total_cache_read`, `total_cache_write` — baselines pre-summed), tool_usage top 20, daily_events/sessions, event_types, sessions_by_status, agents_by_status, avg_events_per_session, total_subagents |
| `GET /api/sessions?limit=100` | Sessions with metadata JSON: `thinking_blocks`, `turn_count`, `total_turn_duration_ms`, `usage_extras` (service_tier, speed, inference_geo) |
| `GET /api/pricing/cost` | Total cost with per-model breakdown |
| `GET /api/workflows/{sessionId}` | 11 workflow datasets: stats, orchestration, toolFlow, effectiveness, patterns, modelDelegation, errorPropagation, concurrency, complexity, compaction, cooccurrence |
## Score Components (each 0–100)
### 1. Completion Rate (20% weight)
From `sessions_by_status`:
- `completed / (completed + error + abandoned) × 100`
- Bonus for high completed-to-active ratio
- Penalty for abandoned sessions (wasted work)
### 2. Token Efficiency (20% weight)
From analytics `tokens` (baselines are pre-summed into totals):
- **Cache hit rate**: `total_cache_read / (total_cache_read + total_input) × 100`
- Above 60% = excellent, below 30% = poor
- **Output concentration**: `total_output / total_input` — 0.3–0.8 is balanced
### 3. Tool Effectiveness (20% weight)
From `event_types`:
- **Success ratio**: Count `PostToolUse` / Count `PreToolUse` — should be ~1.0; gap = tool failures
- **API error rate**: Count `APIError` / total events — should be near 0
- From workflow `effectiveness` data: subagent completion rates, task success per type
### 4. Velocity (20% weight)
From session metadata:
- **Turns per session**: average `turn_count` across sessions
- **Turn speed**: average `total_turn_duration_ms / turn_count` — lower = faster
- **Events per session**: from `avg_events_per_session` in analytics overview
- **Thinking depth**: average `thinking_blocks` — more thinking = more thorough (neutral metric)
### 5. Cost Efficiency (20% weight)
From pricing:
- **Cost per completed session**: `total_cost / completed_sessions`
- **Cost trend**: comparing current period to previous (decreasing = improving)
- **Model optimization**: sessions using expensive models (Opus) for tasks subagents handle with Haiku/Sonnet
## Overall Score
Weighted sum → letter grade:
- **A+** (95-100), **A** (90-94), **B+** (85-89), **B** (80-84), **C+** (75-79), **C** (70-74), **D** (60-69), **F** (<60)
## Output Format
```
═══════════════════════════════════════
PRODUCTIVITY SCORE: 87/100 (B+)
═══════════════════════════════════════
Completion Rate ████████░░ 80/100
Token Efficiency █████████░ 92/100
Tool Effectiveness████████░░ 85/100
Velocity █████████░ 88/100
Cost Efficiency █████████░ 90/100
═══════════════════════════════════════
```
Then: top 3 strengths, top 3 improvement areas with actionable steps, and period comparison if available.Operate and maintain the local MCP server for this repository. Use for MCP tool updates, policy-guard changes, host configuration, and MCP runtime troubleshooting.
Run release-readiness checks for this repository. Use when validating docs, scripts, verification coverage, and operational safety before merge or release.
Understand this repository quickly before making changes. Use for architecture discovery, ownership mapping, command selection, and initial implementation planning.
Review backend route and hook logic for regressions, data integrity risks, and missing tests.
Review React UI changes for behavior regressions, state consistency, and UX breakage.
Review MCP server changes for tool safety, schema quality, and host integration correctness.
Debug production-like issues in this repository with disciplined evidence gathering. Use when fixing failing workflows, regressions, flaky behavior, or data inconsistencies across hooks, API, DB, websocket, and UI.
Operate and maintain the local MCP server for this project. Use when creating MCP host config, troubleshooting tool connectivity, modifying tool domains, or adjusting safety policy flags.