agentsclimarketplace

Collab proof

Skill dong7812/collab-proof/.claude/skills/collab-proof

After a Claude Code session, what did AI contribute vs what you drove? collab-proof records it before it evaporates. Zero dependencies.

Install
npx -y skills add dong7812/collab-proof --skill collab-proof

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 6 stars6 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

11.1 KB, ~2.9k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

collab-proof

Surfaces AI collaboration evidence the developer didn't consciously record. Vela 3-layer pipeline × ADHD 4-frame reasoning — prompt-native, zero dependencies.


Layer 01 — Signal detection

Run git log --oneline -10 and git diff --stat HEAD~3..HEAD first.

Classify signal level using this rubric (pick the highest that matches):

HIGH → full artifacts (DECISIONS.md + session-history + WORKLOG + HTML)

  • New file created, OR
  • 4+ files modified, OR
  • Explicit option comparison in conversation ("vs", "instead of", "chose X over Y"), OR
  • Design discussion lasted 15+ exchanges, OR
  • Bug with root cause diagnosis — conversation contains WHY the bug happened (not just "fixed X" but "the bug was caused by Y because Z")

BUG_FIXING special rule — override file count: Even if only 1 file changed, classify as HIGH if the conversation contains:

  • Root cause explanation ("the bug was...", "this happened because...", "the issue is...")
  • Diagnosis process ("I checked...", "turned out...", "the problem was...")
  • Fix rationale ("chose this approach because...", "instead of X, used Y because...") File count doesn't matter for bugs — a well-diagnosed single-file fix is more valuable than a 10-file feature with no discussion.

MEDIUM → WORKLOG only

  • 1–3 files modified with no root cause discussion, OR
  • Minor feature added, no tradeoffs discussed

LOW → silence, tell user "Routine session — nothing recorded."

  • No code changes, only planning/discussion, OR
  • Single trivial change with no context ("change this text", "fix typo", "rename variable")

Show the user: Signal: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — [one-line reason]


Layer 02 — WorkIntentClassifier

Run all four frames simultaneously against conversation context + git diff. Score each frame 0.0–1.0 using the rubric below. Then apply pruning and classification rules.

Frame scoring rubric

Frame A — Technical (code churn complexity)

  • 1.0 New module/file created, complex logic added (state machine, Lua script, novel algorithm)
  • 0.5 Existing function logic modified, simple API endpoint added
  • 0.1 Typo fix, comment change, plain text edit

Frame B — Uncertainty (developer doubt signals)

  • 1.0 Code written then fully rolled back, explicit doubt expressed ("이게 맞나?", "동작 안 하네"), git revert
  • 0.5 Advice sought from Claude mid-implementation, 2+ revision requests on same area
  • 0.0 Uninterrupted directive execution — developer knew exactly what to build

Frame C — Fork (decision branch presence)

  • 1.0 Two or more alternatives explicitly compared in conversation (A vs B)
  • 0.5 No explicit comparison but tradeoff mentioned (performance vs readability)
  • 0.0 Single standard approach applied, no alternatives considered

Frame D — AI contribution (Claude's actual impact)

  • 1.0 Claude identified a bug/edge case the developer hadn't noticed and proposed the fix
  • 0.6 Claude generated structural boilerplate/skeleton that significantly accelerated execution
  • 0.2 Claude reformatted or transcribed developer-directed code without independent contribution

Pruning rule

Prune any frame scoring < 0.4.

Exception — High-Speed Execution Guard: If Frame A >= 0.8 AND Frame D >= 0.6, do NOT prune and do NOT silence the session, even if Frame B = 0.0 and Frame C = 0.0. This is a boilerplate-heavy FEATURE_BUILDING session. Classify immediately as FEATURE_BUILDING with HIGH signal. Rationale: zero uncertainty in a fast-moving session is a feature, not a reason to discard it.


Intent classification

Surviving framesDominant intentMeaning
A high + D mid-high (B, C low)FEATURE_BUILDINGHigh-velocity feature generation, Claude scaffolding
B high + A/D highBUG_FIXING or STUCKActive debugging or unresolved looping
C high + A highREFACTORING or EXPLORINGArchitecture exploration, weighing alternatives
All frames < 0.4FLOW_STATE or LOWRoutine typing, silence unless Layer 01 was HIGH

If multiple intents tie, pick the one with the highest combined frame score. Record the runner-up — it belongs in the session narrative.


Internal output format

Before proceeding to Layer 03, resolve to this structure (show it to the user):

{
  "frames": {
    "technical": 0.0,
    "uncertainty": 0.0,
    "fork": 0.0,
    "ai_contribution": 0.0
  },
  "pruned": ["list of pruned frame names"],
  "intent": "FEATURE_BUILDING",
  "signal": "HIGH",
  "calibration_note": "one sentence explaining any exception rule applied"
}

Layer 03 — Output

If HIGH signal

Append to DECISIONS.md — one entry per real fork (Frame C must confirm alternatives existed):

## [YYYY-MM-DD] <title>

**Context**: [Frame A — what forced this choice]
**Decision**: what was chosen
**Alternatives considered**: [Frame C — road not taken]
**Reasoning**: why — prefix "inferred:" if reconstructed from context
**AI contribution**:
  - Identified: [Frame D — something developer missed]
  - Suggested: [Frame D — approach or alternative]
  - Developer-driven: [what the developer decided independently]
**Intent class**: [from Layer 02]
**Signal score**: HIGH
**Outcome**: implemented | pending | reversed

If no real fork existed → write nothing. Never fabricate decisions.

BUG_FIXING intent: use this format instead:

## [YYYY-MM-DD] <bug title>

**Root cause**: what actually caused the bug — the WHY, not just the what
**Symptom**: what the developer observed
**Fix**: what was changed
**Why this fix**: rationale — inferred if not stated explicitly
**Alternative fixes considered**: other approaches discussed (if any)
**AI contribution**:
  - Identified: [Frame D — did Claude spot the root cause?]
  - Suggested: [Frame D — fix approach or diagnostic step]
  - Developer-driven: [what the developer diagnosed/decided independently]
**Intent class**: BUG_FIXING
**Signal score**: HIGH
**Outcome**: fixed | workaround | deferred

Create session-history/YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM.md:

# Session [YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM]

**Intent**: [class] (runner-up: [class if any])
**Signal**: HIGH
**Frames active**: A ([score]) / B ([score]) / C ([score]) / D ([score])

## What shipped
[grounded in git log]

## What was figured out
[Frame B + C — the reasoning, tradeoffs, debugging — what developers forget]

## Decisions made this session
[refs to DECISIONS.md entries]

## Where it got hard
[Frame B findings — uncertainty, reverts, EXPLORING/STUCK signals]

## AI contribution summary
[Frame D synthesis — one honest paragraph, calibrated]

## Next steps inferred
[what's obviously incomplete]

Append to WORKLOG.md:

YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | [intent] | HIGH | D:[score] | cache:[hit%]% | tok:[total] | <verb phrase> — <why it mattered>

Fields:

  • D:[score] — Frame D AI contribution score (0.0–1.0)
  • cache:[hit%]% — cache hit rate from token analysis (or cache:n/a if no data)
  • tok:[total] — total tokens this session (input + cache_read + cache_create + output, in K e.g. 45K)
  • verb phrase — what shipped, grounded in git log

Collect token usage (bash — run this and capture output):

python3 -c "
import json, sys
from pathlib import Path

projects = Path.home() / '.claude/projects'
files = sorted(projects.rglob('*.jsonl'), key=lambda f: f.stat().st_mtime, reverse=True)
if not files:
    print('no_data'); sys.exit()

with open(files[0]) as fp:
    lines = [json.loads(l) for l in fp if l.strip()]

ti = to = cr = cc = 0
turns = []
for i, line in enumerate(lines):
    if line.get('type') == 'assistant':
        u = line.get('message', {}).get('usage', {})
        if not u: continue
        inp = u.get('input_tokens', 0)
        ti += inp; to += u.get('output_tokens', 0)
        cr += u.get('cache_read_input_tokens', 0)
        cc += u.get('cache_creation_input_tokens', 0)
        prompt = ''
        for j in range(i-1, -1, -1):
            if lines[j].get('type') == 'user':
                c = lines[j].get('message', {}).get('content', '')
                prompt = (c if isinstance(c, str) else next((x.get('text','') for x in c if isinstance(x,dict) and x.get('type')=='text'), ''))[:80]
                break
        turns.append((inp, prompt))

total = ti + cr + cc
hit = cr / total * 100 if total else 0
print(f'input={ti} output={to} cache_read={cr} cache_create={cc} hit={hit:.0f} turns={len(turns)}')
turns.sort(reverse=True)
for idx, (tok, p) in enumerate(turns[:3]):
    print(f'top{idx+1}={tok}|{p}')
"

Parse the output and include token stats in the session narrative. Then:

Generate session-history/YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-proof.html — write a self-contained HTML file (no external deps, inline CSS/JS only) with these sections:

  • Header: session date, intent, signal level, frame scores
  • "What shipped" section (from git log)
  • "AI contribution summary" (Frame D synthesis)
  • "Decisions" cards (from DECISIONS.md entries if any)
  • "Token usage" panel:
    • Bar showing input / cache_read / cache_create / output proportions
    • Cache hit rate with label (≥80% 🟢 efficient, 50–79% 🟡 moderate, <50% 🔴 high context churn)
    • Top 3 expensive turns with token count and truncated prompt
    • One-line optimization suggestion based on the pattern observed
  • Dark background (#1a1a2e), monospace font, no emoji in code — clean terminal aesthetic

Write the HTML directly using bash:

python3 -c "
content = '''<!DOCTYPE html>...'''  # full HTML string
with open('session-history/YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-proof.html', 'w') as f:
    f.write(content)
"

After writing, show: open session-history/YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-proof.html


If MEDIUM signal

Append one line to WORKLOG.md only:

YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | [intent] | MEDIUM | D:[score] | cache:[hit%]% | tok:[total] | <verb phrase>

If LOW signal

Tell user: "Signal: LOW — Routine session, nothing recorded."


Honesty rules

  • Never invent decisions not in the conversation or implied by the diff
  • "inferred:" prefix when reasoning is reconstructed
  • Frame D must be calibrated — neither overclaim nor dismiss
  • If all frames score < 0.4 → write nothing

PreCompact snapshot (context compaction defence)

When context compaction is about to happen (triggered by the PreCompact hook), run a lightweight mid-session checkpoint before context is lost:

  1. Compute current Layer 01 signal level from available context
  2. Score all four frames against what's visible now
  3. Write a snapshot to session-history/.tmp-TIMESTAMP.json:
{
  "timestamp": "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS",
  "trigger": "pre-compact",
  "signal": "HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW",
  "frames": { "technical": 0.0, "uncertainty": 0.0, "fork": 0.0, "ai_contribution": 0.0 },
  "intent": "FEATURE_BUILDING",
  "key_moments": [
    "one-line description of the most important decision or finding so far"
  ]
}

When /collab-proof runs at session end:

  • Read all session-history/.tmp-*.json files
  • Merge frame scores (take max per frame across all snapshots)
  • Combine key_moments arrays — these preserve tradeoff discussions that were compacted away
  • Delete .tmp-*.json files after merging

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 327,069. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.