analyze

A report-writing tool for coder-eval, a system that tests coding agents on prepared tasks. It examines a completed evaluation run and saves its findings in analysis.md.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to group failures into recurring patterns and recommend what to fix in the tasks, agent setup, or evaluation process.
Why use it?
It helps explain why tasks failed, what got worse compared with an earlier run, and whether several failures share the same cause.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/uipath/coder_eval/analyze
Any agent
npx skills add UiPath/coder_eval --skill analyze
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UiPath/coder_eval

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 57 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,933 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00057 $0.03933
Opus 5 $0.00028 $0.01966
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00787
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00393

Measured 2d ago against content hash 4c7293c462ec, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

analyze scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

plugins/coder-eval/skills/analyze/SKILL.md · 331 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 331 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Analyze a coder-eval run

You analyze a coder-eval run and write analysis.md into the target directory. The target path is $ARGUMENTS; when it is empty, resolve the run yourself by following ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/repo-layout.md — discover the run root rather than assuming one, and say which run you picked and how. If you reach it through a latest symlink, confirm that symlink resolves before reading through it.

Do all the reasoning yourself in this session — no sub-agents. Batch your Read calls in a single turn and write the report inline.

The run directory layout and its scope-marker files are described in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/run-layout.md — read it first; step 1 relies on those markers.

Step 1 — Determine scope

Inspect the target path:

  • task.json directly inside → task scope (single replicate).
  • ??/task.json subdirectories but no variant.jsontask scope, aggregated over replicates per task_id.
  • Contains variant.jsonvariant scope.
  • Contains run.jsonrun scope. If experiment.json is also present, it is a multi-variant experiment.

If the path contains none of those markers, say which markers you looked for and stop. Do not guess a scope from directory names.

Step 2 — Read the data

Task scope (single): read task.json.

Task scope (aggregated replicates): read every ??/task.json and merge — per-replicate arrays for final_status, weighted_score, iteration_count, duration_seconds, total_token_usage.total_cost_usd, and the union of success_criteria_results keyed by criterion description. Drive recommendations from the aggregate ("3/5 replicates failed criterion X"), never from a cherry-picked replicate.

Variant / run scope with more than 20 tasks: do not read the full task.json files — their iterations arrays are large and only useful per task. Extract a compact summary per task with jq (or python3 if jq is missing):

{
  task_id, final_status, weighted_score, duration_seconds,
  iteration_count, model_used, max_turns_exhausted,
  total_cost_usd:  .total_token_usage.total_cost_usd,
  total_tokens:    (.total_token_usage.input_tokens + .total_token_usage.output_tokens),
  assistant_turns: .total_assistant_turns,
  max_turns:       .task_config.resolved.run_limits.max_turns,
  criteria_count:  (.success_criteria_results | length),
  all_criteria_perfect:
    (.success_criteria_results | length > 0 and all(.[]; .score == 1.0)),
  failed_criteria: [
    .success_criteria_results[]
    | select(.score < .pass_threshold)
    | {criterion_type, description, score,
       error_excerpt: ((.error // .details // "")[0:200])}
  ]
}

Read the full file on GitHub · 331 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 331 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 4c7293c462ec

Subscribe to this mod's changes

analyze is a skill published in the GitHub repository UiPath/coder_eval (119 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 3,933 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

execution

M-1.4 execution skill — 跑 single task 产 patch + 提交 envelope。.

Towow-ai/Flowness · 22 tokens

fix-self-check

M-1.6 envelope self-check——独立性保证不自欺欺人 (5 blockingcheck)。由 CLI ./tw fix complete --self-check-mode fork(默认即 fork)自动派起,不经 Skill 工具调用;fix 主会话产 FixCompleted 前直读本文,是为理解双层验证关系。.

Towow-ai/Flowness · 74 tokens

review

M-1.5 review skill — 在 patch 跟 contract 之间找 finding,produce Finding 一等对象。.

Towow-ai/Flowness · 26 tokens

dependency-analyze

从 task 的 read/write set + concept statemachine 推导 6 种依赖类型的提案。主 planner 决定边的真实性。派它时只给 read/write set 与疑点、不给预期边集;已有预判逐条标「待复核」交它取证。.

Towow-ai/Flowness · 70 tokens

execution-self-check

Pre-submit 自检——envelope 提交 commit gate 前必跑。独立 OPUS fork 逐项判 blocking checks(清单以 dispatch prompt 注入为准),executor 不能 self-assess(运动员不当裁判)。.

Towow-ai/Flowness · 55 tokens

fix

修复者 — 把一条被发现的问题(finding)按它的闭合合约修干净,修一个不制造下一个。产 FixProposed + 临时的 FixCompleted,不自判问题关闭(那是复查的权)。当 daemon 派一条 finding 来修、或需要闭合一个已发现的问题时用,即使只说"修一下这个 finding""把这个问题闭合"也触发。调用名就是 fix(Skill 工具)或 /fix(命令),没有 harness: 之类的前缀。.

Towow-ai/Flowness · 129 tokens