Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

people-analytics(人员分析)

用于辅助数据整理、表格处理、CSV/Excel 分析、指标计算和图表准备。它适合让 Agent 清洗字段、汇总数据、发现异常、生成统计口径或把分析结果转成可读说明。使用时需要确认数据来源、字段含义和时间范围,避免把样本数据当全量事实;涉及敏感数据、导出文件或批量写回时,应先确认权限和脱敏边界。

people-analytics 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 27,299。

总安装 3,411周安装 138GitHub Stars 103下载 1,071核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:people-analytics(人员分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/people-analytics
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill people-analytics
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill people-analytics

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

people-analytics 作为资深人力数据分析顾问,将 workforce 数据转化为统计洞察与治理建议。支持 attrition 归因、薪酬公平性分析与员工满意度建模,遵循数据最小化原则。输出可解释的结论与可视化图表,辅助 HR 与业务决策。涉及敏感信息时应脱敏处理,不可将样本推断直接推广至全量人群。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/people-analytics

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill people-analytics;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

people-analytics 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill people-analytics。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

people-analytics 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

people-analytics 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

people-analytics 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

people-analytics 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 3,411 次,近一周安装 138 次,下载 1,071 次,GitHub 103 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

people-analytics 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
people-analytics

人员分析 · 本页

3,411103需要联网MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

People Analytics

The agent operates as a senior people analytics partner, translating workforce data into actionable insights using statistical modeling, segmentation analysis, and data governance best practices.

Workflow

  1. Frame the question -- Clarify the business question with the HR or business stakeholder. Examples: "Why is Sales attrition 2x the company average?" or "Are we paying equitably across gender?" Define the success metric for the analysis.
  2. Assess data readiness -- Identify required data sources (HRIS, ATS, survey platform, payroll). Check for completeness, recency, and quality. Flag any gaps before proceeding.
  3. Analyze -- Apply the appropriate method from the analytics toolkit (descriptive stats, regression, classification, segmentation). Document assumptions and limitations.
  4. Validate findings -- Sense-check results with domain experts (HRBPs, managers). Test for statistical significance and practical significance. Check predictive models for bias across protected groups.
  5. Recommend -- Translate findings into 2-3 specific, actionable recommendations with expected impact and cost.
  6. Deliver and monitor -- Present insights using the dashboard framework. Set up ongoing monitoring for key metrics with alert thresholds.
Checkpoint: After step 2, confirm that all data has been anonymized or aggregated to comply with privacy policy before analysis begins.

Analytics Maturity Model

LevelNameCapabilitiesTypical Questions Answered
1Operational ReportingHeadcount, compliance, ad-hoc queries"How many people do we have?"
2Advanced ReportingDashboards, trends, benchmarking, segmentation"How has attrition changed by quarter?"
3AnalyticsStatistical analysis, correlation, root cause"What drives attrition in Sales?"
4PredictiveTurnover prediction, performance modeling, risk scoring"Who is likely to leave in the next 6 months?"
5PrescriptiveAutomated recommendations, real-time interventions"What should we do to retain this person?"

Core HR Metrics

Workforce Metrics

MetricFormulaBenchmark
Turnover Rate(Separations / Avg HC) x 10010-15%
Retention Rate(Retained / Starting HC) x 10085-90%
Time to FillDays from req open to offer accept30-45 days
Cost per HireTotal recruiting cost / Hires$3-5K
Regrettable TurnoverRegrettable exits / Total exits< 30%

Performance Metrics

MetricFormulaBenchmark
High Performers% rated top tier15-20%
Goal CompletionGoals achieved / Goals set80%+
Promotion RatePromotions / Headcount8-12%

Engagement Metrics

MetricFormulaBenchmark
eNPSPromoters % - Detractors %20-40
Engagement ScoreSurvey composite (1-100)70%+
AbsenteeismAbsent days / Work days< 3%

Turnover Prediction Model

import pandas as pd
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.metrics import classification_report

def build_turnover_model(employee_data: pd.DataFrame) -> dict:
    """
    Build and evaluate a turnover prediction model.

    Input: DataFrame with columns for features + 'left_company' (0/1).
    Output: dict with model, feature importance, and evaluation metrics.
    """
    features = [
        'tenure_months', 'salary_ratio_to_market', 'performance_rating',
        'months_since_last_promotion', 'manager_tenure', 'team_size',
        'engagement_score', 'training_hours_ytd', 'projects_completed'
    ]

    X = employee_data[features]
    y = employee_data['left_company']

    X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(
        X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42, stratify=y
    )

    model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, random_state=42)
    model.fit(X_train, y_train)

    y_pred = model.predict(X_test)
    report = classification_report(y_test, y_pred, output_dict=True)

    importance = (
        pd.DataFrame({'feature': features, 'importance': model.feature_importances_})
        .sort_values('importance', ascending=False)
    )

    return {'model': model, 'importance': importance, 'evaluation': report}

def score_flight_risk(model, current_employees: pd.DataFrame) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """
    Score current employees for flight risk.

    Returns DataFrame with employee_id, flight_risk_score (0-1), and risk_level.
    """
    probabilities = model.predict_proba(current_employees[model.feature_names_in_])[:, 1]

    risk_levels = pd.cut(
        probabilities,
        bins=[0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0],
        labels=['Low', 'Medium', 'High', 'Critical']
    )

    return pd.DataFrame({
        'employee_id': current_employees['employee_id'],
        'flight_risk_score': probabilities.round(3),
        'risk_level': risk_levels
    }).sort_values('flight_risk_score', ascending=False)

Example: Sales Attrition Root-Cause Analysis

QUESTION
  Sales voluntary turnover is 22% vs 12% company average. Why?

DATA
  Source: HRIS + engagement survey + exit interviews (n=45 exits, trailing 12 mo)

ANALYSIS
  Segmentation by tenure band:
    < 1 yr: 35% of exits (onboarding/ramp issues)
    1-2 yr: 40% of exits (comp dissatisfaction + career path)
    2+ yr: 25% of exits (manager relationship)

  Regression on exit survey scores (n=38 respondents):
    Top drivers of intent-to-leave:
      1. "I am paid fairly" (beta = -0.42, p < 0.01)
      2. "I see a career path here" (beta = -0.31, p < 0.01)
      3. "My manager supports my development" (beta = -0.28, p < 0.05)

  Compensation benchmark:
    Sales IC3 compa-ratio: 0.88 (12% below midpoint)
    Sales IC2 compa-ratio: 0.91 (9% below midpoint)
    Rest of company average: 0.98

FINDINGS
  1. Sales comp is significantly below market, especially at IC2-IC3
  2. No defined career ladder for Sales ICs beyond IC3
  3. New hires (< 1 yr) leaving due to unrealistic ramp expectations

RECOMMENDATIONS
  1. Market adjustment: Bring Sales IC2-IC3 to 95th percentile compa-ratio ($180K budget)
  2. Publish a Sales career ladder through IC5 with clear promotion criteria
  3. Redesign onboarding: extend ramp period from 30 to 90 days with milestone targets

EXPECTED IMPACT
  Reduce Sales attrition from 22% to 14-16% within 12 months
  ROI: $180K adjustment saves ~$450K in replacement costs (10 fewer exits x $45K/hire)

Pay Equity Analysis

import pandas as pd
import statsmodels.api as sm

def analyze_pay_equity(employee_data: pd.DataFrame) -> dict:
    """
    Conduct pay equity analysis controlling for legitimate pay factors.

    Returns raw gap, adjusted gap, model fit, and employees flagged for review.
    """
    # Raw gap
    avg_by_gender = employee_data.groupby('gender')['salary'].mean()
    raw_gap = (avg_by_gender['Female'] - avg_by_gender['Male']) / avg_by_gender['Male']

    # Adjusted gap (control for level, tenure, performance, location)
    controls = pd.get_dummies(
        employee_data[['job_level', 'tenure_years', 'performance_rating', 'department', 'location']],
        drop_first=True
    )
    controls = sm.add_constant(controls)
    controls['is_female'] = (employee_data['gender'] == 'Female').astype(int)

    model = sm.OLS(employee_data['salary'], controls).fit()
    adjusted_gap = model.params['is_female']

    # Flag outliers (residual > 2 std dev)
    employee_data['predicted'] = model.predict(controls)
    employee_data['residual'] = employee_data['salary'] - employee_data['predicted']
    threshold = 2 * employee_data['residual'].std()
    flagged = employee_data[abs(employee_data['residual']) > threshold]

    return {
        'raw_gap_pct': round(raw_gap * 100, 1),
        'adjusted_gap_usd': round(adjusted_gap, 0),
        'model_r_squared': round(model.rsquared, 3),
        'employees_flagged': len(flagged),
        'flagged_details': flagged[['employee_id', 'salary', 'predicted', 'residual']]
    }

Engagement Survey Analysis

  1. Calculate response rate -- Target 80%+ for statistical validity. Flag departments below 60%.
  2. Compute category scores -- Average Likert responses by category (Manager, Growth, Culture, Compensation). Compare to prior period.
  3. Run driver analysis -- Regress category scores against overall engagement to identify which categories have the highest impact on engagement.
  4. Segment -- Break results by department, level, tenure band, and location. Identify where scores diverge most from company average.
  5. Prioritize -- Plot categories on a 2x2 matrix (Impact vs Score). "High impact, low score" quadrant = priority action areas.
Checkpoint: Suppress results for any segment with fewer than 5 respondents to protect anonymity.

DEI Metrics Framework

DomainMetricsData Source
RepresentationGender / ethnicity distribution by levelHRIS
Pay equityRaw gap, adjusted gap (controlled regression)Payroll + HRIS
ProgressionPromotion rates by demographic groupHRIS
HiringOffer and accept rates by demographic groupATS
InclusionInclusion index, belonging score, psychological safetySurvey

Data Governance Checklist

Before starting any people analytics project:

  • Business question and purpose clearly documented
  • Data minimization applied (only collect what is needed)
  • Privacy impact assessment completed
  • Anonymization or aggregation applied where possible
  • Predictive models tested for bias across protected groups
  • Role-based access controls implemented
  • Data retention policy defined
  • Employee communication planned (transparency principle)

Reference Materials

  • references/hr_metrics.md - Complete HR metrics guide
  • references/predictive_models.md - Predictive modeling approaches
  • references/survey_design.md - Survey methodology
  • references/data_ethics.md - Ethical analytics practices

Scripts

# Analyze engagement survey results with driver analysis
python scripts/survey_analyzer.py --file survey_results.csv
python scripts/survey_analyzer.py --file survey_results.csv --prior prior_survey.csv --json

# Score attrition risk from employee data
python scripts/attrition_predictor.py --file employees.csv
python scripts/attrition_predictor.py --file employees.csv --threshold 0.7 --json

# Workforce headcount planning calculations
python scripts/headcount_planner.py --file workforce.csv --growth 0.15 --attrition 0.12
python scripts/headcount_planner.py --file workforce.csv --growth 0.15 --attrition 0.12 --json

Troubleshooting

ProblemRoot CauseResolution
Low survey response rate (< 70%)Survey fatigue, lack of trust in anonymity, or no visible action from prior surveysShorten survey to 15-20 questions max; communicate anonymity safeguards clearly; publish and act on top 3 findings from prior survey before launching next one
Attrition model produces too many false positivesOverfitting on historical data, missing key features, or class imbalanceAdd regularization; use SMOTE or class weights to handle imbalance; validate with cross-validation not just train/test split; include manager quality and comp-ratio as features
Stakeholders distrust analytics findingsResults contradict lived experience, or methodology is opaquePresent methodology transparently; validate findings with HRBPs before publishing; use confidence intervals not point estimates; start with descriptive analytics to build trust before predictive
Data quality issues across HRIS sourcesInconsistent coding, missing fields, stale records, or duplicate entriesEstablish data governance council; define data owners per field; run quarterly data quality audits; build automated validation checks at ingestion
Privacy concerns block analysisInsufficient anonymization, no consent framework, or regulatory gapsApply k-anonymity (minimum group size of 5); conduct privacy impact assessment before each project; engage Legal early; use aggregated data when individual-level is not required
Engagement scores are flat despite interventionsMeasuring wrong drivers, action plans not executed, or survey is too genericRun driver analysis to identify high-impact low-score areas; assign action owners with quarterly check-ins; customize survey questions by department or function
Leadership does not act on insightsInsights are too academic, lack business framing, or arrive too lateLead with business impact (revenue, cost, risk); limit recommendations to 2-3 with clear owners and timelines; deliver insights within 2 weeks of data collection

Success Criteria

DimensionMetricTargetMeasurement
Data QualityHRIS data completeness> 95% of required fields populatedQuarterly data audit report
Data QualityData freshnessAll records updated within 30 daysHRIS last-modified timestamps
AdoptionStakeholder usage of dashboards> 70% of HRBPs and VPs access monthlyDashboard analytics / login tracking
AdoptionInsight-to-action rate> 60% of recommendations result in initiativesQuarterly tracking of recommendation outcomes
AccuracyAttrition prediction precision> 70% precision at 50% recallModel evaluation against actuals (6-month lag)
AccuracySurvey driver analysis validityTop 3 drivers validated by qualitative dataCross-reference with exit interviews and focus groups
ImpactRegrettable attrition reduction10-20% reduction within 12 months of interventionHRIS voluntary termination data, regrettable flag
ImpactTime from question to insight< 2 weeks for standard analysesRequest-to-delivery tracking
CompliancePrivacy incidentsZero breaches of anonymity thresholdsAudit log of all queries; minimum group size enforcement
MaturityAnalytics maturity level progressionAdvance 1 level per 12-18 monthsSelf-assessment against the Analytics Maturity Model

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

  • Workforce descriptive analytics: headcount, turnover, retention, demographics, tenure distribution
  • Engagement survey design, analysis, driver identification, and benchmarking
  • Attrition risk scoring using rule-based and statistical methods (standard library only)
  • Pay equity analysis: raw gap, controlled gap, outlier flagging
  • DEI metrics: representation, progression rates, hiring funnel equity
  • Workforce planning: headcount forecasting, scenario modeling, gap analysis
  • Dashboard design and KPI framework recommendations

Out of Scope:

  • Real-time predictive models requiring ML frameworks (scikit-learn, TensorFlow) -- scripts use rule-based scoring for portability
  • Sentiment analysis of free-text survey responses (requires NLP libraries)
  • Individual employee profiling or surveillance -- all analysis uses aggregated or anonymized data
  • HRIS system administration, data pipeline engineering, or ETL development
  • Legal interpretation of pay equity findings (requires Employment Law counsel)
  • Organizational network analysis requiring email/calendar metadata

Known Limitations:

  • Attrition risk scoring in scripts uses weighted heuristics, not trained ML models; accuracy depends on feature quality and weight calibration
  • Pay equity analysis in the SKILL.md examples requires statsmodels (external dependency); scripts use standard-library approximations
  • Survey analysis assumes Likert scale (1-5) responses; other formats require preprocessing
  • Small population segments (< 30) produce unreliable statistical results; flag these in reporting
  • Historical data biases (e.g., biased performance ratings) propagate into predictive models if not addressed

Integration Points

System / SkillIntegrationData Flow
HRIS (Workday, BambooHR, HiBob)Employee master data, tenure, compensation, performance ratingsHRIS -> analytics data lake; analytics insights -> HRBP workforce plans
ATS (Greenhouse, Lever)Hiring funnel data, source-of-hire, time-to-fillATS -> hiring analytics; quality-of-hire scoring feeds back to TA strategy
Survey Platform (Culture Amp, Qualtrics, Lattice)Engagement survey responses, eNPS, pulse check dataSurvey platform -> survey_analyzer.py; driver analysis -> action planning
Talent Acquisition skillHiring funnel metrics, source effectiveness, quality of hireTA pipeline data -> analytics models; analytics insights -> sourcing optimization
HR Business Partner skillWorkforce planning inputs, org health scoring, retention strategyAnalytics insights -> HRBP recommendations; HRBP questions -> analytics projects
Operations Manager skillHeadcount forecasting, capacity planning, productivity metricsOps demand forecast -> headcount_planner.py; workforce metrics -> ops capacity models
Finance skillCompensation budgets, cost modeling, headcount budget vs actualFinance comp data -> pay equity analysis; headcount plan -> Finance budget model
Payroll (ADP, Gusto)Compensation actuals, bonus payouts, overtime dataPayroll -> comp analysis; pay equity findings -> comp adjustment recommendations
BI Platform (Tableau, Looker, Power BI)Dashboard hosting, self-service analytics, scheduled reportingAnalytics outputs -> BI dashboards; BI usage metrics -> adoption tracking

平台分布

Claude Code

29.39%
按下载量换算315

OpenCode

20.77%
按下载量换算222

Antigravity

16.04%
按下载量换算172

Gemini CLI

12.75%
按下载量换算137

Cursor

6.86%
按下载量换算73

windsurf

3.22%
按下载量换算34

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills