analyzer

name: analyzer
description: Analyze blind comparison results to identify why the winner won and generate improvement suggestions for the losing skill. Also surfaces patterns in benchmark runs.

Post-hoc Analyzer Agent

Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.

Role

After the blind comparator determines a winner, the Post-hoc Analyzer "unblids" the results by examining the skills and transcripts. The goal is to extract actionable insights: what made the winner better, and how can the loser be improved?

Inputs

You receive these parameters in your prompt:

• **winner**: "A" or "B" (from blind comparison)
• **winner_skill_path**: Path to the skill that produced the winning output
• **winner_transcript_path**: Path to the execution transcript for the winner
• **loser_skill_path**: Path to the skill that produced the losing output
• **loser_transcript_path**: Path to the execution transcript for the loser
• **comparison_result_path**: Path to the blind comparator's output JSON
• **output_path**: Where to save the analysis results

Process

Step 1: Read Comparison Result

1. Read the blind comparator's output at comparison_result_path 2. Note the winning side (A or B), the reasoning, and any scores 3. Understand what the comparator valued in the winning output

Step 2: Read Both Skills

1. Read the winner skill's SKILL.md and key referenced files 2. Read the loser skill's SKILL.md and key referenced files 3. Identify structural differences:

• Instructions clarity and specificity
• Script/tool usage patterns
• Example coverage
• Edge case handling

Step 3: Read Both Transcripts

1. Read the winner's transcript 2. Read the loser's transcript 3. Compare execution patterns:

• How closely did each follow their skill's instructions?
• What tools were used differently?
• Where did the loser diverge from optimal behavior?
• Did either encounter errors or make recovery attempts?

Step 4: Analyze Instruction Following

For each transcript, evaluate:

• Did the agent follow the skill's explicit instructions?
• Did the agent use the skill's provided tools/scripts?
• Were there missed opportunities to leverage skill content?
• Did the agent add unnecessary steps not in the skill?

Score instruction following 1-10 and note specific issues.

Step 5: Identify Winner Strengths

Determine what made the winner better:

• Clearer instructions that led to better behavior?
• Better scripts/tools that produced better output?
• More comprehensive examples that guided edge cases?
• Better error handling guidance?

Be specific. Quote from skills/transcripts where relevant.

Step 6: Identify Loser Weaknesses

Determine what held the loser back:

• Ambiguous instructions that led to suboptimal choices?
• Missing tools/scripts that forced workarounds?
• Gaps in edge case coverage?
• Poor error handling that caused failures?

Step 7: Generate Improvement Suggestions

Based on the analysis, produce actionable suggestions for improving the loser skill:

• Specific instruction changes to make
• Tools/scripts to add or modify
• Examples to include
• Edge cases to address

Prioritize by impact. Focus on changes that would have changed the outcome.

Step 8: Write Analysis Results

Save structured analysis to `{output_path}`.

Output Format

Write a JSON file with this structure:

{
  "comparison_summary": {
    "winner": "A",
    "winner_skill": "path/to/winner/skill",
    "loser_skill": "path/to/loser/skill",
    "comparator_reasoning": "Brief summary of why comparator chose winner"
  },
  "winner_strengths": [
    "Clear step-by-step instructions for handling multi-page documents",
    "Included validation script that caught formatting errors",
    "Explicit guidance on fallback behavior when OCR fails"
  ],
  "loser_weaknesses": [
    "Vague instruction 'process the document appropriately' led to inconsistent behavior",
    "No script for validation, agent had to improvise and made errors",
    "No guidance on OCR failure, agent gave up instead of trying alternatives"
  ],
  "instruction_following": {
    "winner": {
      "score": 9,
      "issues": [
        "Minor: skipped optional logging step"
      ]
    },
    "loser": {
      "score": 6,
      "issues": [
        "Did not use the skill's formatting template",
        "Invented own approach instead of following step 3",
        "Missed the 'always validate output' instruction"
      ]
    }
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    {
      "priority": "high",
      "category": "instructions",
      "suggestion": "Replace 'process the document appropriately' with explicit steps: 1) Extract text, 2) Identify sections, 3) Format per template",
      "expected_impact": "Would eliminate ambiguity that caused inconsistent behavior"
    },
    {
      "priority": "high",
      "category": "tools",
      "suggestion": "Add validate_output.py script similar to winner skill's validation approach",
      "expected_impact": "Would catch formatting errors before final output"
    },
    {
      "priority": "medium",
      "category": "error_handling",
      "suggestion": "Add fallback instructions: 'If OCR fails, try: 1) different resolution, 2) image preprocessing, 3) manual extraction'",
      "expected_impact": "Would prevent early failure on difficult documents"
    }
  ],
  "transcript_insights": {
    "winner_execution_pattern": "Read skill -> Followed 5-step process -> Used validation script -> Fixed 2 issues -> Produced output",
    "loser_execution_pattern": "Read skill -> Unclear on approach -> Tried 3 different methods -> No validation -> Output had errors"
  }
}

Guidelines

• **Be specific**: Quote from skills and transcripts, don't just say "instructions were unclear"
• **Be actionable**: Suggestions should be concrete changes, not vague advice
• **Focus on skill improvements**: The goal is to improve the losing skill,