Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

conversation-quality-scoring(对话质量评分)

conversation-quality-scoring 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

conversation-quality-scoring 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,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,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 50,485。

总安装 615周安装 8GitHub Stars 11下载 65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
unknown

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:conversation-quality-scoring(对话质量评分)
来源仓库:https://github.com/louisblythe/salesskills
仓库路径:skills/conversation-quality-scoring
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/louisblythe/salesskills --skill conversation-quality-scoring
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。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/louisblythe/salesskills --skill conversation-quality-scoring

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。

conversation-quality-scoring 评估销售对话质量以识别优秀表现案例。基于多维指标评分,揭示最佳实践并为改进提供依据。适用于客服培训、绩效分析及话术持续优化场景。需结合具体业务指标定义“高质量”标准。

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/conversation-quality-scoring

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/louisblythe/salesskills --skill conversation-q…;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

conversation-quality-scoring 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/louisblythe/salesskills --skill conversation-quality-sco…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

conversation-quality-scoring 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。

conversation-quality-scoring 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

conversation-quality-scoring 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

conversation-quality-scoring 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 615 次,近一周安装 8 次,下载 65 次,GitHub 11 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。

conversation-quality-scoring 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。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 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。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 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
conversation-quality-scoring

对话质量评分 · 本页

61511只读未明确通过

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

Conversation Quality Scoring

You are an expert in building sales bots that rate conversation quality to identify top performers. Your goal is to help developers create systems that score conversations to find what works and coach improvement.

Why Quality Scoring Matters

The Blind Spot Problem

Without quality scoring:
- All conversations treated equal
- Don't know what "good" looks like
- Can't identify best practices
- No basis for improvement

Rep A: 10% conversion
Rep B: 15% conversion
Bot C: 12% conversion
Why? Unknown.

With Quality Scoring

Quality-aware system:
- Score each conversation dimension
- Identify high-quality patterns
- Spot areas for improvement
- Benchmark and compare

Rep A: Score 65 (weak on discovery)
Rep B: Score 82 (strong qualification)
Bot C: Score 71 (needs better objection handling)
Now we know where to focus.

Scoring Dimensions

Engagement Quality

def score_engagement(conversation):
    score = 0

    # Response rate
    response_rate = calculate_response_rate(conversation)
    if response_rate >= 0.8:
        score += 30
    elif response_rate >= 0.5:
        score += 20
    elif response_rate >= 0.3:
        score += 10

    # Response depth
    avg_response_length = calculate_avg_response_length(conversation)
    if avg_response_length > 50:
        score += 20
    elif avg_response_length > 25:
        score += 10

    # Response sentiment
    sentiment_trend = analyze_sentiment_trend(conversation)
    if sentiment_trend > 0:
        score += 20
    elif sentiment_trend == 0:
        score += 10

    # Engagement velocity
    avg_response_time = calculate_avg_response_time(conversation)
    if avg_response_time < timedelta(hours=4):
        score += 15

    return min(score, 100)

Discovery Quality

def score_discovery(conversation):
    score = 0

    # Information gathered
    info_gathered = {
        "pain_points": 25,
        "budget": 20,
        "timeline": 20,
        "decision_process": 15,
        "stakeholders": 15,
        "current_solution": 10
    }

    for info_type, points in info_gathered.items():
        if has_gathered_info(conversation, info_type):
            score += points

    # Question quality
    questions = extract_questions(conversation, sender="bot")
    open_questions = [q for q in questions if is_open_ended(q)]
    if len(open_questions) >= 3:
        score += 15

    # Follow-up depth
    follow_ups = count_follow_up_questions(conversation)
    score += min(follow_ups * 5, 20)

    return min(score, 100)

Value Communication

def score_value_communication(conversation):
    score = 0

    # Value propositions delivered
    value_props = extract_value_propositions(conversation)
    if len(value_props) >= 2:
        score += 25

    # Personalization
    personalization_level = assess_personalization(conversation)
    score += personalization_level * 25

    # Relevance to stated needs
    needs = extract_stated_needs(conversation)
    solutions = extract_solutions_offered(conversation)
    alignment = calculate_need_solution_alignment(needs, solutions)
    score += alignment * 30

    # Social proof used
    if has_relevant_social_proof(conversation):
        score += 15

    return min(score, 100)

Objection Handling Quality

def score_objection_handling(conversation):
    objections = extract_objections(conversation)

    if not objections:
        return None  # No objections to score

    score = 0
    for objection in objections:
        # Was it acknowledged?
        if objection.acknowledged:
            score += 10

        # Was it addressed?
        if objection.addressed:
            score += 20

        # Was the response appropriate?
        response_quality = assess_response_quality(objection.response)
        score += response_quality * 15

        # Was it resolved?
        if objection.resolved:
            score += 15

    # Average across objections
    avg_score = score / len(objections)
    return min(avg_score, 100)

Progression Quality

def score_progression(conversation):
    score = 0

    # Stage advancement
    if advanced_stage(conversation):
        score += 30

    # Commitments obtained
    commitments = extract_commitments(conversation)
    score += len(commitments) * 10

    # Clear next steps
    if has_clear_next_step(conversation):
        score += 25

    # Meeting scheduled
    if meeting_scheduled(conversation):
        score += 25

    # Forward momentum
    momentum = assess_momentum(conversation)
    score += momentum * 20

    return min(score, 100)

Aggregate Scoring

Weighted Total Score

def calculate_total_quality_score(conversation):
    weights = {
        "engagement": 0.20,
        "discovery": 0.25,
        "value_communication": 0.20,
        "objection_handling": 0.15,
        "progression": 0.20
    }

    scores = {
        "engagement": score_engagement(conversation),
        "discovery": score_discovery(conversation),
        "value_communication": score_value_communication(conversation),
        "objection_handling": score_objection_handling(conversation),
        "progression": score_progression(conversation)
    }

    # Handle None (e.g., no objections)
    active_weights = {}
    for dimension, score in scores.items():
        if score is not None:
            active_weights[dimension] = weights[dimension]

    # Normalize weights
    weight_sum = sum(active_weights.values())
    normalized_weights = {k: v/weight_sum for k, v in active_weights.items()}

    # Calculate weighted total
    total = sum(
        scores[d] * normalized_weights[d]
        for d in normalized_weights
        if scores[d] is not None
    )

    return {
        "total_score": total,
        "dimension_scores": scores,
        "weights_used": normalized_weights
    }

Score Interpretation

def interpret_score(score_result):
    total = score_result["total_score"]

    if total >= 85:
        tier = "excellent"
        description = "High-quality conversation with strong execution"
    elif total >= 70:
        tier = "good"
        description = "Solid conversation with room for improvement"
    elif total >= 55:
        tier = "average"
        description = "Adequate but missing opportunities"
    elif total >= 40:
        tier = "below_average"
        description = "Several areas need attention"
    else:
        tier = "poor"
        description = "Significant improvement needed"

    # Find weakest dimension
    weak_dimensions = [
        d for d, s in score_result["dimension_scores"].items()
        if s is not None and s < 50
    ]

    # Find strongest dimension
    strong_dimensions = [
        d for d, s in score_result["dimension_scores"].items()
        if s is not None and s >= 80
    ]

    return {
        "tier": tier,
        "description": description,
        "weakest": weak_dimensions,
        "strongest": strong_dimensions,
        "recommendation": generate_improvement_recommendation(score_result)
    }

Comparative Analysis

Benchmarking

def benchmark_conversation(conversation, comparison_group):
    """Compare conversation to peers"""

    my_score = calculate_total_quality_score(conversation)

    # Get comparison group scores
    peer_scores = [
        calculate_total_quality_score(c)
        for c in comparison_group
    ]

    peer_totals = [s["total_score"] for s in peer_scores]

    return {
        "my_score": my_score["total_score"],
        "percentile": calculate_percentile(my_score["total_score"], peer_totals),
        "peer_average": mean(peer_totals),
        "peer_top_10": percentile(peer_totals, 90),
        "gap_to_average": my_score["total_score"] - mean(peer_totals),
        "gap_to_top": percentile(peer_totals, 90) - my_score["total_score"]
    }

Rep/Bot Comparison

def compare_performers(performer_ids, time_period):
    """Compare quality scores across reps or bots"""

    results = {}
    for performer_id in performer_ids:
        conversations = get_conversations(performer_id, time_period)
        scores = [calculate_total_quality_score(c) for c in conversations]

        results[performer_id] = {
            "avg_total": mean([s["total_score"] for s in scores]),
            "avg_by_dimension": {
                d: mean([s["dimension_scores"][d] for s in scores if s["dimension_scores"][d]])
                for d in ["engagement", "discovery", "value_communication", "objection_handling", "progression"]
            },
            "conversation_count": len(conversations),
            "trend": calculate_score_trend(scores)
        }

    return results

Quality Improvement

Coaching Recommendations

def generate_coaching_insights(performer_id, time_period):
    scores = get_performer_scores(performer_id, time_period)

    insights = []

    # Find consistently weak dimensions
    dimension_avgs = calculate_dimension_averages(scores)
    for dimension, avg in dimension_avgs.items():
        if avg < 60:
            insights.append({
                "type": "weakness",
                "dimension": dimension,
                "score": avg,
                "recommendation": get_dimension_recommendation(dimension),
                "examples": get_high_score_examples(dimension)
            })

    # Find declining dimensions
    for dimension in dimension_avgs:
        trend = calculate_dimension_trend(scores, dimension)
        if trend < -0.1:  # Declining
            insights.append({
                "type": "declining",
                "dimension": dimension,
                "trend": trend,
                "recommendation": f"Focus on {dimension} - scores declining"
            })

    return insights

Automated Feedback

def provide_conversation_feedback(conversation):
    score = calculate_total_quality_score(conversation)
    interpretation = interpret_score(score)

    feedback = {
        "overall": f"Score: {score['total_score']:.0f}/100 ({interpretation['tier']})",
        "strengths": [],
        "improvements": []
    }

    for dimension, dim_score in score["dimension_scores"].items():
        if dim_score and dim_score >= 75:
            feedback["strengths"].append(
                f"Strong {dimension} (score: {dim_score:.0f})"
            )
        elif dim_score and dim_score < 55:
            feedback["improvements"].append({
                "dimension": dimension,
                "score": dim_score,
                "tip": get_improvement_tip(dimension, conversation)
            })

    return feedback

Implementation

Real-Time Scoring

class ConversationScorer:
    def __init__(self, conversation_id):
        self.conversation_id = conversation_id
        self.running_score = {}

    def update_score(self, new_message):
        """Update score after each message"""

        conversation = get_conversation(self.conversation_id)

        # Recalculate dimensions that could have changed
        self.running_score = calculate_total_quality_score(conversation)

        # Alert if significant change
        if self.score_dropped_significantly():
            alert_quality_drop(self.conversation_id, self.running_score)

        return self.running_score

Metrics

Quality Correlation

Track:
- Correlation between quality score and conversion
- Correlation between dimensions and outcomes
- Which dimensions matter most?

Validate:
- Do high-scoring conversations convert better?
- Which scores predict success?

平台分布

Codex

34.05%
按下载量换算22

Claude

31.39%
按下载量换算20

Cursor

17.4%
按下载量换算11

Gemini CLI

8.78%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills