checking-member-access
Explains what a member or a role can do in a PostHog project, using the access control MCP tools. Use when the user asks what someone can see or edit, who can…
Signals scout for observability gaps — significant event volumes with no insight, dashboard, or alert coverage. Recommends new insights, dashboards, or alerts as the product evolves.
$ npx -y skills add posthog/posthog --skill signals-scout-observability-gaps --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/signals-scout-observability-gapsContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Signals scout for observability gaps — significant event volumes with no insight, dashboard, or alert coverage. Recommends new insights, dashboards, or alerts as the product evolves.
name: signals-scout-observability-gaps description: > Signals scout for observability gaps — significant event volumes with no insight, dashboard, or alert coverage. Recommends new insights, dashboards, or alerts as the product evolves. compatibility: > PostHog Signals agent (Claude sandbox). Read-only analytics + signal_scout_internal:write (scratchpad) + signal_scout_report:write (report channel), plus the analytics and entity tools in the MCP tools section (read-data-schema, query-trends, query-paths, execute-sql over system.* tables, event-definitions-list, alerts-list, dashboards-get-all). allowed_tools: - emit_report - edit_report metadata: owner_team: signals scope: observability_gaps
You are a focused observability-gaps scout. Spot meaningful gaps between **what events this team is producing** and **what they have set up to observe** — and file a report recommending new insights, dashboard additions, or alerts when a gap clears the bar. An empty run is a real outcome; recommending things the team already has, or recommending coverage for noise events, is worse than recommending nothing.
The shape of this scout is different from the other specialists: the findings are **recommendations**, not **problems**. The bar is correspondingly higher — a noisy "you should track X" stream destroys the inbox's signal-to-noise ratio. Prefer fewer, well-evidenced recommendations.
You author reports directly via the report channel (`scout-emit-report` / `scout-edit-report`): you've done the research, so you own each recommendation 1:1 end-to-end rather than firing weak signals for a pipeline to cluster. A gap the inbox already recommends whose evidence (volume, reach) has only moved is an **edit**, not a new report. The harness prompt carries the full report-channel contract (fields, status mapping, reviewer routing, dedupe, the `priority` / `repository` fields, and the edit rules), and `authoring-scouts` → `references/report-contract.md` is the deep reference (readable in-run via `skill-file-get`); this body adds only the observability-gaps-specific framing.
If `top_events` in the project profile is null or shows fewer than ~5 events firing above 100/day, the project is too quiet for observability-gap analysis to surface real recommendations. `top_events` counts are windowed (each row carries `window_days`), not lifetime, so before closing out on thinness rule out a capture gap: a project whose ingestion recently went dark reads identically to one that never had traffic. If the counts look suspiciously thin for a team that otherwise looks active (configured integrations, saved insights, recent activity), confirm with a direct `execute-sql` over a longer window (e.g. 30d) rather than trusting the profile snapshot — a temporary gap is a capture problem for another surface, not a genuine absence of volume. Only when the low volume holds across that wider window, write one scratchpad entry:
Close out empty. Future observability-gaps runs read this entry cold and short-circuit in seconds. Re-running with the same key idempotently refreshes the timestamp — the entry stays until the team grows into meaningful volume, at which point the next run rewrites or deletes it.
The opposite end has a fast path too. On a mature project (thousands of insights, hundreds of alerts), a few runs will establish that whole gap families are **saturated** — every high-volume event already has dense coverage, and newly-emerged events get covered within days. Record that as durable memory instead of rediscovering it every run:
Once saturation is documented, the default run shape changes: check the tripwire against the fresh profile, then run **at most one fresh probe** — an angle no prior run has covered — to earn the close-out rather than inherit it. If the tripwire is untriggered and the probe comes back clean, close out empty in minutes. Don't re-run coverage SQL a run verified hours ago; that's duplication, not diligence.
One asymmetry to bake in: the **coverage** families (1, 3, 4, 5, 6) saturate _permanently_ on a mature team — every high-volume event already has dense coverage — but **insight drift (family 2) does not.** Drift is generated continuously as the product renames and sunsets events, so on an otherwise-saturated team it is the one durably productive angle. Lead with it and treat the coverage families as inherit-saturation unless their tripwire fires.
When several probe angles exist (new-event emergence, alert coverage, insight drift), **rotate**: each run picks the _stalest_ angle — the one untouched longest — and inherits the others' recent readings. Rotating earns a genuinely fresh close-out each tick without re-running identical SQL hourly.
Cycle between these moves; skip what's not useful, revisit what is.
Four cheap reads cold-start a run:
:hedgehog: PostHog is the leading platform for building self-driving products. Our developer tools – AI observability, analytics, session replay, flags, experiments, error tracking, logs, and more – capture all the context agents need to diagnose problems, uncover opportunities, and ship fixes. Steer it all from Slack, web, desktop, or the MCP.
Repo: posthog/posthog
Explains what a member or a role can do in a PostHog project, using the access control MCP tools. Use when the user asks what someone can see or edit, who can…
Analyze the most expensive users in AI observability and explain why they cost so much. Use when the user asks about top spenders, expensive users, per-user…
Author continuously-running online evaluations in PostHog AI observability, grounded in real failure modes you've identified. Use when the user wants…
Find where an AI/LLM application is failing in production and surface the failure patterns, working from real traces. Use when someone wants to understand…
Investigate AI observability clusters — understand usage patterns in AI/LLM traffic, compare cluster behavior, compute cost/latency metrics, and drill into…
Investigate LLM spend in PostHog — total cost over time, cost by model, provider, user, trace, or custom dimension, token and cache-hit economics, and cost…