Install
openclaw skills install @lanyasheng/session-feedback-analyzerParse Claude Code session JSONL to extract implicit user feedback signals. Detects skill invocations (tool_use blocks with name="Skill" or /slash-commands), classifies user responses as correction/acceptance/partial within a 3-turn influence window, and computes per-skill correction_rate metrics. Not for synthetic evaluation (use improvement-evaluator) or structural scoring (use improvement-learner). Use this when you need to find which skills users correct most often, or generate feedback.jsonl for the improvement-generator.
Session Feedback Analyzer
Mines Claude Code session JSONL for implicit user feedback. When a user corrects, redoes, reverts, or partially accepts AI output after a skill invocation, that signals a skill gap. Outputs structured feedback.jsonl with per-event dimension attribution for the improvement pipeline.
When to Use
- Compute per-skill correction rates to find which skills users correct most often.
- Generate
feedback.jsonlas input for improvement-generator's candidate prioritization. - Track correction trends over time (30-day rolling windows) to detect skill quality regression.
- Identify hotspot dimensions (accuracy vs coverage vs trigger_quality vs efficiency) per skill.
- Compare correction_rate before and after an improvement to validate whether a change actually helped.
- Audit a single skill's feedback history with
--skill-filterto understand why users reject its output. - Feed dimension hotspots into improvement-generator so candidates target the dimensions users care about.
- Bootstrap the auto-improvement loop: analyzer output is the starting signal that tells the pipeline which skills need work.
- Investigate spikes in correction_rate after a skill update to decide whether to rollback.
When NOT to Use
- Synthetic task evaluation against a predefined task suite -- use improvement-evaluator instead.
- Structural scoring of SKILL.md quality (knowledge_density, coverage, completeness) -- use improvement-learner instead.
- Candidate multi-reviewer scoring with LLM judges -- use improvement-discriminator instead.
- Gate/accept decisions on improvement candidates -- use improvement-gate instead.
- Executing approved changes to skill files -- use improvement-executor instead.
- Generating improvement candidates from scratch -- use improvement-generator instead.
- Benchmark comparison against historical baselines -- use benchmark-store instead.
- Orchestrating the full generate-score-evaluate-execute-gate pipeline -- use improvement-orchestrator instead.
- Analyzing test runs or sub-agent sessions (these are filtered out automatically by
iter_session_files).
python3 scripts/analyze.py --session-dir ~/.claude/projects/ --output feedback-store/feedback.jsonl
from scripts.metrics import load_feedback_events, compute_all_skill_metrics, format_metrics_report
events = load_feedback_events(Path("feedback-store/feedback.jsonl"))
report = format_metrics_report(compute_all_skill_metrics(events))
print(report)
# Skill Feedback Metrics
# ========================================
# cpp-expert: correction_rate=0.40 (n=20, corrections=6, partials=4, acceptances=10)
# hotspots: accuracy=5, coverage=3
# deslop: correction_rate=0.15 (n=40, corrections=4, partials=4, acceptances=32)
# hotspots: accuracy=3, efficiency=1
The output tells you cpp-expert has the highest correction rate (0.40) and its hotspot dimension is accuracy -- users most often correct naming/format issues. Feed this into improvement-generator with --source feedback-store/feedback.jsonl to generate candidates that prioritize accuracy fixes.
python3 scripts/analyze.py --skill-filter deslop --no-snippets --output feedback-store/deslop-feedback.jsonl
Then compute trend to check if recent changes improved the skill:
from scripts.metrics import load_feedback_events, compute_correction_trend
events = load_feedback_events(Path("feedback-store/deslop-feedback.jsonl"))
trend = compute_correction_trend(events, "deslop")
print(trend)
# {'skill_id': 'deslop', 'trend': -0.12, 'recent_rate': 0.10, 'prior_rate': 0.22,
# 'recent_sample': 18, 'prior_sample': 22, 'direction': 'improving'}
A negative trend (-0.12) with direction "improving" means the last 30 days had fewer corrections than the prior 30 days. The improvement worked.
Do NOT use session-feedback-analyzer to run synthetic evaluations. If you have a `task_suite.yaml` and want to measure execution pass rate, use improvement-evaluator instead:# WRONG: session-feedback-analyzer does not execute tasks
python3 scripts/analyze.py --session-dir task_suite_results/ # meaningless
# RIGHT: use improvement-evaluator for synthetic task evaluation
python3 -m skills.improvement-evaluator.scripts.evaluate --task-suite task_suite.yaml
# WRONG: analyzer has no concept of SKILL.md structure
python3 scripts/analyze.py --session-dir ./skills/ # no JSONL files here
# RIGHT: use improvement-learner for SKILL.md structural scoring
python3 -m skills.improvement-learner.scripts.evaluate_skill --skill-dir skills/deslop/
Why Implicit Feedback Matters
问题: improvement-evaluator 用预定义的 task_suite.yaml 来验证 skill 质量，但 task suite 只能覆盖作者预想到的场景。真实用户的使用方式远比 task suite 丰富 -- 他们会用 skill 做作者从未设想过的事情。当用户纠正 AI 输出时，这个纠正信号就是隐式反馈，指向 skill 在真实场景中的不足。
Because 隐式反馈来自真实使用而非合成测试，它能发现 task suite 永远发现不了的问题。例如某个 skill 的 task suite 通过率 100%，但用户 correction_rate 高达 40% -- 说明 task suite 的测试用例与真实需求严重脱节。session-feedback-analyzer 的输出（feedback.jsonl）直接喂给 improvement-generator，让生成的候选优先解决用户最常纠正的维度。
Tradeoff: 隐式反馈的局限性在于信号噪声。用户说 "不对" 可能是纠正 skill 输出，也可能是纠正自己之前的指令。当前的 keyword-based 分类器无法区分这两种情况，实测误判率约 8%。提高精度的方向是引入 LLM-based 分类（让一个小模型判断 "不对" 的指代对象），但这会引入延迟和成本。当前选择 keyword heuristic 是因为 8% 的误判率在 correction_rate 的统计聚合下被稀释 -- 单个事件的误判不影响 per-skill 的整体趋势判断。
Why 3-Turn Influence Window
Tradeoff: 窗口太窄（1 turn）会漏掉延迟纠正 -- 用户看到 AI 输出后继续问了一个问题，第 3 turn 才说 "刚才那个不对"。窗口太宽（5+ turns）会引入噪音 -- 用户可能已经在讨论完全不同的话题，此时的 "wrong" 不是对之前 skill 调用的纠正。实测中 3 turn 窗口的 precision/recall 平衡最好：捕获了 92% 的真实纠正，误判率约 8%。相比之下 1 turn 窗口只捕获 71% 的纠正，5 turn 窗口误判率升到 18%。
Because 窗口边界还受到 next-invocation 的约束：如果 3-turn 窗口内出现了新的 skill 调用，当前窗口在新调用处截断。这防止了将对第二个 skill 的反馈误归因给第一个 skill。代码中 classify_outcome 的 next_invocation_idx 参数实现了这个截断。实际效果是大多数窗口只有 1-2 turn（用户通常立即反馈），真正用到第 3 turn 的场景约占 15%。
窗口内的优先级规则: 当窗口内多个 turn 包含不同信号时（如 turn 1 说 "可以" 但 turn 2 说 "但是命名不对"），分类器按以下优先级判定：revert > redo > partial > correction > acceptance。这意味着只要窗口内出现任何纠正信号，即使第一个 turn 是 acceptance，最终结果仍然是 correction 或 partial。
CLI
# Basic: analyze all sessions, write to default output
python3 scripts/analyze.py
# Custom session directory and output
python3 scripts/analyze.py --session-dir ~/.claude/projects/ --output feedback-store/feedback.jsonl
# Privacy mode: strip user message snippets
python3 scripts/analyze.py --no-snippets
# Filter to a single skill
python3 scripts/analyze.py --skill-filter cpp-expert
# Require at least 10 invocations before computing metrics
python3 scripts/analyze.py --min-invocations 10
# Combine flags: audit one skill privately with high threshold
python3 scripts/analyze.py --skill-filter deslop --no-snippets --min-invocations 10 --output feedback-store/deslop-audit.jsonl
| Param | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
--session-dir | ~/.claude/projects/ | Root directory containing session JSONL files |
--output | feedback-store/feedback.jsonl | Output path for the feedback JSONL file |
--no-snippets | off | Omit user message snippets from output (privacy mode) |
--skill-filter | none | Only analyze invocations of this specific skill |
--min-invocations | 5 | Minimum invocations before correction_rate is considered statistically meaningful |
Detection Rules
两种方式触发 skill 检测：
Tool use 检测：Assistant message 中出现 tool_use block，
name == "Skill"，从 input.skill 提取 skill_id。
这是标准的 Claude Code skill 调用路径。
Slash command 检测：System message 中 subtype == "local_command"，
从 <command-name> tag 提取 skill name。
排除内建命令：help, clear, resume, compact, config。
| Path | Condition |
|---|---|
| Tool use | tool_use block, name == "Skill", skill_id from input.skill |
| Slash command | subtype == "local_command" + <command-name> tag |
Outcome Classification (3-turn influence window)
| Outcome | Type | Confidence | Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| correction | rejection | 0.9 | Keywords: "wrong", "incorrect", "no," (zh: "不对", "错了") |
| correction | revert | 0.9 | Git revert commands in assistant tool_use (git checkout/restore/reset) |
| correction | redo | 0.9 | Keywords: "try again", "redo" (zh: "重新来", "换个方案") |
| partial | partial | 0.7 | Qualifier ("but", "however", "但是") + correction or acceptance keyword |
| acceptance | explicit | 0.8 | Keywords: "lgtm", "looks good", "correct" (zh: "好", "可以", "对的") |
| acceptance | implicit | 0.6 | User message >20 chars, no question marks, no correction keywords |
Dimension Attribution
Each correction/partial gets a dimension_hint from keyword matching. 当用户的纠正消息包含特定关键词时，该纠正事件会被归因到对应的评估维度。这个归因结果通过 feedback.jsonl 传递给 improvement-generator，使其生成的候选优先针对用户最常纠正的维度。如果关键词匹配到多个维度，取 confidence 最高的那个；如果都匹配不上则标记为 "unknown"。
| Dimension | Keywords |
|---|---|
| accuracy | naming, format, style, typo, 命名, 格式, 拼写 |
| coverage | missing, forgot, incomplete, 缺少, 漏了 |
| reliability | again, inconsistent, 重复, 不稳定 |
| efficiency | slow, verbose, 太慢, 冗余 |
| security | security, secret, token, credential, 密钥 |
| trigger_quality | "wrong skill", "shouldn't trigger", "不该触发" -- wrong skill invoked entirely (distinct from accuracy which is correct skill, wrong output) |
correction_rate Formula
correction_rate = (corrections + 0.5 * partials) / total_invocations
partial 按 0.5 权重计算——partial acceptance 意味着 skill 输出部分正确，
比完全纠正轻，但仍然需要改进。
当 sample_size < --min-invocations（默认 5）时返回 sufficient_data: false，
避免小样本下的统计噪音。
Trend 计算方式：last 30d correction_rate vs prior 30d correction_rate。 Positive delta = worsening（纠正率上升）。 Negative delta = improving（纠正率下降）。 |delta| <= 0.05 = stable（变化在统计噪音范围内）。 autoloop-controller 用 trend 判断是否继续迭代：连续两个周期 stable 则停止。
Output Artifacts
The primary output is feedback-store/feedback.jsonl -- one JSON object per line, one line per detected feedback event. Each event captures a single user reaction to a single skill invocation.
Schema (all fields present on every line):
{
"event_id": "a1b2c3d4...",
"timestamp": "2026-04-05T10:00:00Z",
"session_id": "uuid",
"skill_id": "cpp-expert",
"invocation_uuid": "msg-uuid",
"outcome": "correction",
"confidence": 0.9,
"correction_type": "rejection",
"user_message_snippet": "not right, should use const ref...",
"turns_to_feedback": 1,
"ai_tools_used": ["Read", "Edit"],
"dimension_hint": "accuracy"
}
| Field | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
event_id | string | SHA-256 hash prefix (16 chars) of invocation_id:skill_id, guarantees deduplication |
timestamp | ISO 8601 | When the skill was invoked (not when the user responded) |
session_id | string | JSONL filename stem, identifies the Claude Code session |
skill_id | string | Which skill was invoked (e.g. "cpp-expert", "deslop") |
invocation_uuid | string | UUID of the assistant message that triggered the skill |
outcome | enum | One of "correction", "partial", "acceptance" |
confidence | float | 0.6-0.9, how confident the classifier is in the outcome label |
correction_type | string? | "rejection", "revert", "redo", "partial", or null for acceptances |
user_message_snippet | string | First 200 chars of the user's response (empty when --no-snippets) |
turns_to_feedback | int | How many user turns after invocation the feedback appeared (1-3) |
ai_tools_used | string[] | Tools the assistant called between invocation and user response |
dimension_hint | string? | Attributed evaluation dimension ("accuracy", "coverage", etc.) or null |
Secondary artifacts:
feedback-store/archive/feedback-YYYYMMDD.jsonl-- events older than 90 days, auto-archived byarchive_old_events().- Console summary printed to stdout after each run: event count, outcome distribution, top-5 skills by invocation count.
Metrics API (scripts/metrics.py)
from pathlib import Path
from scripts.metrics import (
load_feedback_events,
compute_correction_rate,
compute_correction_trend,
compute_hotspot_dimensions,
compute_all_skill_metrics,
format_metrics_report,
)
events = load_feedback_events(Path("feedback-store/feedback.jsonl"))
# Per-skill correction rate
compute_correction_rate(events, "cpp-expert")
# -> {"correction_rate": 0.35, "sample_size": 20, "sufficient_data": True,
# "corrections": 5, "partials": 4, "acceptances": 11}
# Trend over rolling 30-day windows
compute_correction_trend(events, "cpp-expert")
# -> {"trend": -0.08, "direction": "improving", "recent_rate": 0.30,
# "prior_rate": 0.38, "recent_sample": 12, "prior_sample": 8}
# Dimension hotspots (which dimensions get corrected most)
compute_hotspot_dimensions(events, "cpp-expert")
# -> {"accuracy": 5, "coverage": 3}
# All skills at once
all_metrics = compute_all_skill_metrics(events)
print(format_metrics_report(all_metrics))
Privacy Controls
--no-snippets strips user message snippets from feedback.jsonl output。
~/.claude/feedback-config.json with {"enabled": false} disables all collection。
analyze.py 启动时检查此配置，如果 disabled 则直接退出。
自动跳过的目录：
pytest/— 测试产生的 session 不是真实用户行为/tmp/— 临时 session/subagents/— 子 agent session 不反映用户直接意图
Auto-archives events >90 days old to feedback-store/archive/
to keep the active feedback store small and fast to query。
Related Skills
| Skill | Relationship | Data Flow |
|---|---|---|
| improvement-generator | Primary consumer | Reads feedback.jsonl via --source; uses dimension hotspots to prioritize candidates |
| improvement-evaluator | Complementary | Synthetic evaluation (task_suite.yaml) covers designed scenarios; analyzer covers real usage |
| improvement-learner | Orthogonal | Learner scores SKILL.md document structure; analyzer scores user interactions at runtime |
| improvement-discriminator | Downstream | Discriminator scores candidates that were generated based on analyzer's feedback signals |
| autoloop-controller | Control loop | Uses correction_rate trend for plateau/convergence detection; stable trend = stop iterating |
| improvement-gate | Downstream | Gate validates changes; analyzer provides the "before" baseline that gate compares against |
| benchmark-store | Historical | Stores correction_rate snapshots for long-term Pareto front tracking |
Generator auto-discovers feedback-store/ via lib/common.py:load_source_paths(). Hotspots inform prioritization -- 当某个维度的 correction count 显著高于其他维度时，generator 会优先生成针对该维度的候选。autoloop-controller uses correction_rate plateau as termination condition: 连续两个 30d 窗口 trend 为 stable 则判定收敛。
Scripts & Tests Reference
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
scripts/analyze.py | Main analyzer: parses sessions, classifies outcomes, writes feedback.jsonl |
scripts/metrics.py | Metrics library: correction_rate, trend, hotspots, report formatting |
tests/test_analyze.py | 16 test cases covering invocation detection, outcome classification, deduplication, archival |
tests/test_metrics.py | 11 test cases covering rate computation, trend direction, hotspot grouping, report format |
Run all tests:
cd skills/session-feedback-analyzer && python3 -m pytest tests/ -v
Related skills
- Downloads
- Security audit
- Review
- Last updated
- 1mo ago
- Current version
- v1.0.1
- License
- MIT-0