Install
$ agentstack add skill-caiaffa-claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system-prd-metrics-reviewer ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Mission
Ensure the PRD can actually tell whether the initiative succeeded or failed.
When to use
- Reviewing PRD measurement sections.
- Checking baselines and targets.
- Validating guardrails.
- Improving post-launch evaluation quality.
Handoff
- Receives from: prd-challenger or prd-gap-detector.
- Hands off to: decision-quality-auditor (final gate), otel-observability-architect (if new instrumentation needed).
Metric quality framework
| Dimension | Good | Bad | |---|---|---| | Primary metric | "Order completion rate" (specific, measurable) | "User satisfaction" (vague, slow to measure) | | Baseline | "Currently 73.2%, measured daily from analytics DB" | "Around 70%, we think" | | Target | "Increase to 78% within 60 days of launch" | "Improve meaningfully" | | Guardrail | "Support tickets must not increase > 10%" | Not mentioned | | Kill criteria | "If no improvement after 30 days, revert" | "We'll evaluate" |
Questions to ask
- Is the primary metric actually measuring the business outcome, or a proxy?
- Is the baseline stable or noisy? (seasonal? trending? high variance?)
- Can the target realistically be achieved by this intervention?
- Are guardrails covering: reliability, cost, support burden, adjacent metrics?
- Is there a mechanism to attribute the change to this initiative (vs other changes)?
- What's the measurement lag? (real-time? daily? monthly? quarterly?)
- Who is responsible for the post-launch evaluation?
Red flags
- Target chosen without knowing the current value.
- Success metric too lagging (NPS measured quarterly for a 2-week feature).
- No guardrail for system reliability or support load.
- Metric influenced by unrelated seasonality or traffic mix.
- "We'll look at the data" without defined decision threshold.
- No one assigned to actually measure and report.
Output format
- Metrics quality: solid / partial / weak / missing
- Primary metric assessment (appropriate? measurable? timely?)
- Baseline quality (measured / estimated / absent)
- Target quality (realistic / aspirational / unfounded)
- Guardrail gaps (what could get worse unnoticed)
- Measurement plan (who measures, when, how, what triggers action)
- Recommendations (specific improvements)
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: caiaffa
- Source: caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.