| name | customize-measurement |
| description | Customize AI proficiency measurement for your specific repository through a guided interview. Use when: setting up measure-ai-proficiency for a new repo, adjusting thresholds for your team's size, hiding irrelevant recommendations, or mapping custom file names to standard patterns. |
Customize Measurement
Generate a customized .ai-proficiency.yaml configuration through a guided interview process.
When to Use
- First time setting up measure-ai-proficiency for a repository
- Current scoring doesn't match your team's structure
- Want to hide irrelevant recommendations (e.g., no MCP, no Gas Town)
- Your team uses different file names (e.g.,
SYSTEM_DESIGN.mdinstead ofARCHITECTURE.md)
Workflow
Phase 1: Interview
Ask questions in thematic batches of 2-3 questions using AskUserQuestion.
Batch 1: AI Tools
1. Which AI coding assistants does your team use?
- Claude Code
- GitHub Copilot
- Cursor
- OpenAI Codex
- Multiple (specify)
2. Is one tool primary, or do you use them equally?
Batch 2: Documentation Conventions
1. Do you use different file names for documentation?
Examples:
- SYSTEM_DESIGN.md instead of ARCHITECTURE.md
- CODING_STANDARDS.md instead of CONVENTIONS.md
- docs/api/README.md instead of API.md
2. Where does your team store documentation?
- Root level (ARCHITECTURE.md)
- docs/ folder
- documentation/ folder
- Other location
Batch 3: Focus & Scope
1. Which capabilities are NOT relevant to your team? (Select all that apply)
- hooks (Claude hooks)
- commands (Claude slash commands)
- skills (Agent skills)
- memory (Memory files like LEARNINGS.md)
- agents (Multi-agent setup)
- mcp (MCP server configs)
- beads (Beads memory system)
- gastown (Gas Town orchestration)
2. What's your priority focus?
- documentation (ARCHITECTURE.md, CONVENTIONS.md)
- skills (Agent skills)
- testing (Test documentation)
- architecture (System design docs)
- All equally
Batch 4: Thresholds & Industry
1. Is the default scoring appropriate for your repo?
- Too strict (small team/startup - lower thresholds)
- About right (default thresholds)
- Too lenient (enterprise - higher thresholds)
2. Any industry-specific patterns to include?
- FinTech (COMPLIANCE.md, PCI_DSS.md, SECURITY_STANDARDS.md)
- Healthcare (HIPAA.md, PHI_HANDLING.md)
- Open Source (GOVERNANCE.md, MAINTAINERS.md)
- Enterprise (SOC2.md, SECURITY_AUDIT.md)
- None / General
Batch 5: Validation (Optional)
1. Does your documentation mention example file names that don't exist?
- Yes (meta-tools, template repos, documentation showing patterns)
- No (all file references point to real files)
2. If yes, which patterns should be skipped during validation?
- Best practices not yet adopted (.mcp.json, .claude/settings.json)
- Industry examples (HIPAA.md, COMPLIANCE.md)
- Custom examples (ask user to specify)
Phase 2: Generate Configuration
Based on interview responses, generate .ai-proficiency.yaml:
# .ai-proficiency.yaml
# Generated by customize-measurement skill
# Customized for: [repo name]
# AI tools in use
tools:
- claude-code # or detected tools
# Custom file locations (if different from defaults)
documentation:
# architecture: "docs/SYSTEM_DESIGN.md"
# conventions: "CODING_STANDARDS.md"
# api: "docs/api/README.md"
# testing: "docs/TESTING_GUIDE.md"
# Level thresholds (adjusted for team size)
thresholds:
level_3: 15 # Comprehensive Context
level_4: 12 # Skills & Automation
level_5: 10 # Multi-Agent Ready
level_6: 8 # Fleet Infrastructure
level_7: 6 # Agent Fleet
level_8: 5 # Custom Orchestration
# Skip irrelevant recommendations
skip_recommendations:
# - hooks
# - commands
# - skills
# - memory
# - agents
# - mcp
# - beads
# - gastown
# Focus areas (optional - show only these)
# focus_areas:
# - documentation
# - skills
# - testing
# Skip validation warnings for documentation examples
# skip_validation_patterns:
# - "COMPLIANCE.md" # Example mentioned in docs
# - ".mcp.json" # Best practice not yet adopted
Phase 3: Validate
After generating the config:
measure-ai-proficiency
Verify the output matches expectations. Adjust config if needed.
Threshold Guidelines
| Team Size | Suggested Thresholds |
|---|---|
| Startup (1-5 devs) | level_3: 8, level_4: 6 |
| Small (5-20 devs) | level_3: 12, level_4: 10 |
| Medium (20-100 devs) | level_3: 15, level_4: 12 (default) |
| Enterprise (100+ devs) | level_3: 20, level_4: 15 |
Industry Patterns
FinTech
documentation:
compliance: "COMPLIANCE.md"
security: "SECURITY_STANDARDS.md"
pci: "PCI_DSS.md"
Healthcare
documentation:
hipaa: "HIPAA.md"
phi: "PHI_HANDLING.md"
security: "SECURITY_COMPLIANCE.md"
Open Source
documentation:
governance: "GOVERNANCE.md"
maintainers: "MAINTAINERS.md"
contributing: "CONTRIBUTING.md"
Example Session
User: /customize-measurement
Claude: I'll help you create a customized .ai-proficiency.yaml for your repository.
Let me ask a few questions to understand your setup.
[AskUserQuestion - AI Tools batch]
1. Which AI coding assistants does your team use?
2. Is one the primary tool?
User: We use Claude Code primarily, with some GitHub Copilot usage.
[AskUserQuestion - Documentation batch]
1. Do you use different file names for documentation?
2. Where do you store docs?
User: We use docs/DESIGN.md instead of ARCHITECTURE.md. Everything is in docs/.
[AskUserQuestion - Focus batch]
1. Which capabilities aren't relevant?
2. What's your priority focus?
User: We don't use MCP or Gas Town. Focus on documentation and testing.
[AskUserQuestion - Thresholds batch]
1. Is default scoring appropriate?
2. Any industry patterns?
User: We're a small startup, defaults are too strict. No special industry.
Claude: Based on your responses, here's your customized config:
[Generates .ai-proficiency.yaml with:
- tools: claude-code, github-copilot
- documentation.architecture: docs/DESIGN.md
- thresholds lowered for startup
- skip_recommendations: mcp, gastown
- focus_areas: documentation, testing]
Run `measure-ai-proficiency` to validate.
Quick Reference
Triggers:
- "Customize AI proficiency measurement"
- "Set up .ai-proficiency.yaml"
- "Configure measurement for my repo"
- "The scoring doesn't match my setup"