# Pipeline Summary Report > Use when all pipeline analysis reports are complete and a unified summary is needed, when combining findings from multiple analysis phases into a single executive overview, or when producing a final deliverable that summarizes both the composite picture and individual report findings - Skill: `aaddrick/pipeline-summary-report` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add aaddrick/pipeline-summary-report` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/aaddrick/pipeline-summary-report/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: DevOps & Infra - Author: aaddrick (https://skillmd.com/u/aaddrick) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/aaddrick/pipeline-summary-report --- # Pipeline Summary Report ## Overview Produce a unified summary of all completed pipeline analysis reports. The core principle: **read every report, synthesize a composite executive summary of the full persona, then summarize each report individually — the reader should understand the complete picture from the top section alone, but can drill into any specific analysis below.** ## When to Use - All (or most) pipeline skills have completed and written reports to `docs/analysis/` - A final deliverable is needed that combines findings across all phases - Stakeholder needs a single document covering the entire analysis without reading 25+ separate reports - Pipeline orchestrator signals that synthesis is complete and summary is the final step **When NOT to use:** - Reports are still actively being generated (wait for pipeline completion) - Only a single report needs review (just read that report directly) - You need to produce the subagent instruction prompt (that is skill 25, not this skill) ## Core Pattern ``` Read all reports in docs/analysis/ (01 through 25) | v [Executive Summary] -- synthesize key findings across ALL reports into a narrative | v [Per-Report Summaries] -- summarize each report's findings in 3-8 bullet points | v [Pipeline Health] -- note any failed/missing/low-confidence reports | v Write to docs/analysis/26-pipeline-summary.md ``` ## Implementation ### Step 1: Inventory Available Reports Scan `docs/analysis/` for all report files. Classify each as: - **Present**: File exists with substantive content - **Missing**: File does not exist (skill was not run or failed) - **Stub**: File exists but is under 500 bytes or contains error markers ```python from pathlib import Path REPORT_DIR = Path("docs/analysis") EXPECTED_REPORTS = { "01": "csv-metadata-forensic", "02": "tiered-processing-pipeline", "02b": "content-hydration", "03": "automated-orchestration", "04": "taxonomic-interest-classification", "05": "nmf-topic-modeling", "06": "llm-relevance-scoring", "07": "vader-sentiment-analysis", "08": "weighted-engagement-scoring", "09": "supplementary-engagement", "10": "network-social-graph", "11": "longitudinal-growth-curves", "12": "temporal-circadian-patterns", "13": "taxonomic-shift-detection", "14": "mdpi-hypernetwork-archetype", "15": "big-five-personality", "16": "liwc-psycholinguistic", "17": "cat-linguistic-style-matching", "18": "stylometric-fingerprinting", "19": "readability-lexical-diversity", "20": "rhetorical-discourse-structure", "21": "register-variation-code-switching", "22": "speech-act-pragmatic", "23": "archetype-assignment", "24": "style-specification", "25": "subagent-instruction", } ``` ### Step 2: Read and Synthesize For each present report, read the full content. Then produce two outputs: **A. Executive Summary (top of report)** This is NOT a list of bullet points from each report stitched together. It is a **synthesized narrative** that answers: - Who is this person, in behavioral and communicative terms? - What is their assigned archetype and why? - What are the 3-5 most distinctive traits of their writing voice? - What are the key constraints for replicating their voice? - What is the confidence level, given data quality and analysis coverage? Write this as 2-4 paragraphs of flowing prose. The reader should understand the complete persona from this section alone. **B. Per-Report Summaries** For each completed report, write a section with: - The report title and skill number - 3-8 bullet points of key findings (quantitative where possible) - Any caveats or low-confidence flags from the original report Group these by pipeline phase: 1. Data Preparation (reports 01-03 + 02b) 2. Content and Interest Analysis (reports 04-06) 3. Sentiment and Engagement (reports 07-10) 4. Temporal and Behavioral (reports 11-13) 5. Psycholinguistic Profiling (reports 14-22) 6. Classification and Synthesis (reports 23-25) ### Step 3: Pipeline Health Section At the end of the report, include: - Table of all expected reports with status (present / missing / stub) - Count of completed vs. total skills - Any reports that flagged low-confidence or insufficient data - Whether the final subagent instruction (skill 25) was produced ## Report Template Write to `docs/analysis/26-pipeline-summary.md`: ```markdown # Pipeline Summary Report Generated: [timestamp] Reports analyzed: [N] of [total expected] Pipeline status: [COMPLETE / PARTIAL] --- ## Executive Summary [2-4 paragraphs synthesizing the complete persona picture. Who is this person? What defines their voice? What are the key constraints for replication? What is the confidence level?] --- ## Phase 1: Data Preparation ### 01 — CSV Metadata Forensic Reconstruction - [key finding] - [key finding] - ... ### 02 — Tiered Processing Pipeline - [key finding] - ... ### 02b — Content Hydration - [key finding] - ... ### 03 — Automated Orchestration - [key finding] - ... ## Phase 2: Content and Interest Analysis ### 04 — Taxonomic Interest Classification - [key finding] - ... [... continue for all phases and reports ...] --- ## Pipeline Health | # | Report | Status | Confidence | |---|--------|--------|------------| | 01 | CSV Metadata Forensic | COMPLETE | high | | 02 | Tiered Processing | COMPLETE | high | | ... | ... | ... | ... | ### Missing Reports - [list any missing reports and their impact on the overall analysis] ### Low-Confidence Flags - [list any reports that flagged data quality issues or low confidence] ### Final Deliverables - Archetype assignment: [present/missing] — docs/analysis/23-archetype-assignment.md - Style specification: [present/missing] — docs/analysis/24-style-specification.md - Subagent instruction: [present/missing] — docs/analysis/25-subagent-instruction.md ``` ## Good Patterns - **Synthesize, don't concatenate**: The executive summary should tell a story, not repeat bullet points. Connect findings across reports — e.g., "The high Openness score (Big Five) aligns with the polymathic interest classification, and both are reflected in the user's register variation across 14 distinct subreddit communities." - **Quantify everything**: Prefer "TTR of 0.72 indicating high lexical diversity" over "diverse vocabulary." - **Flag uncertainty explicitly**: If a report noted low confidence or insufficient data, carry that caveat into the summary. Do not present low-confidence findings as definitive. - **Respect the archetype**: The archetype assignment (skill 23) is the organizing frame. Lead with it in the executive summary and show how other findings support or nuance it. - **Include the subagent prompt status**: The pipeline's ultimate deliverable is the subagent instruction. State clearly whether it was produced and at what confidence level. ## Anti-Patterns | Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix | |---------|-------------|-----| | Listing bullet points from each report without synthesis | Reader still has to do the mental work of connecting findings | Write flowing prose in the executive summary that draws connections | | Omitting missing reports from the summary | Reader doesn't know what's missing and may assume completeness | Always include the Pipeline Health table showing all expected reports | | Parroting numbers without interpretation | "Flesch-Kincaid 12.3" means nothing without context | Always translate metrics to plain language: "writes at a 12th-grade level" | | Presenting low-confidence findings as definitive | Misleads about analysis reliability | Prefix with confidence level or caveat | | Writing the summary before reading ALL available reports | Early reports bias the synthesis | Read all reports first, take notes, then write the summary | ## Boundaries **This skill SHOULD:** - Read all available reports in `docs/analysis/` - Produce a synthesized executive summary narrative - Summarize each report individually with quantitative findings - Report pipeline health and missing/failed analyses - Write to `docs/analysis/26-pipeline-summary.md` **This skill should NOT:** - Re-run any analysis or produce new analytical findings - Modify upstream reports - Substitute its own judgment for the archetype assignment - Produce the subagent instruction prompt (that is skill 25) - Claim completeness when reports are missing ## Insufficient Data Handling | Condition | Action | |-----------|--------| | **Fewer than 10 reports present** | Write summary of available reports; flag as "preliminary — insufficient coverage for full synthesis" | | **No archetype assignment (report 23)** | Note absence in executive summary; present available findings without archetype framing | | **No synthesis reports (23-25)** | Summarize phases 1-5 findings only; note "synthesis phase not completed" | | **Reports present but mostly stubs/failures** | List what exists; write executive summary as "limited analysis" with explicit gaps | | **All reports present and complete** | Full summary with high-confidence executive synthesis | ## Common Mistakes | Mistake | Fix | |---------|-----| | Writing the executive summary first, then the per-report sections | Read all reports first, write per-report summaries, THEN synthesize the executive summary from your notes | | Making the summary longer than the sum of its parts | Each per-report section should be 3-8 bullets. The executive summary should be 2-4 paragraphs. Total should be concise. | | Not linking back to source reports | Include the report path (e.g., `docs/analysis/15-big-five-personality.md`) so readers can drill into detail | | Ignoring cross-report contradictions | If Big Five says low Openness but taxonomy says polymathic, note the tension explicitly |