# Mtg Edh Analyze > Analyze and star-rate an existing 100-card Magic the Gathering Commander (EDH) deck that the user pastes in, judged against a target power bracket. Use this skill whenever the user wants their Commander deck rated, scored, graded, reviewed, or assessed — "how good is my deck", "rate my EDH deck", "give my deck a score out of 5", "how does this deck stack up at Bracket 3", "analyze my commander deck", "is this deck any good", "what bracket is my deck", or any request to evaluate a Commander list rather than build or upgrade one. The user pastes their current decklist inline and names (or is asked for) a target bracket (1–5). The skill measures the deck's hard stats (land count, mana curve, ramp/draw/interaction density, EDHREC-rank staple signal, Game Changer count, color-identity legality, price) via the local Scryfall database, reads every card's Oracle text to score synergy density, then awards an overall ★ rating (with a per-dimension scorecard) for how well the deck performs *at its bracket* — covering pe - Skill: `guuse/mtg-edh-analyze` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 10 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add guuse/mtg-edh-analyze` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/guuse/mtg-edh-analyze/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: guuse (https://skillmd.com/u/guuse) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/guuse/mtg-edh-analyze --- # MTG Commander Deck Analyzer & Star Rating This skill takes a Commander deck the user pastes in and **rates it out of five stars against a target bracket**, with a transparent scorecard and concrete next steps. It is the *evaluation* counterpart to the deckbuilding skills: it doesn't build (`mtg-edh-build`) or swap cards (`mtg-edh-upgrade`) — it **measures and judges**, then points at what to fix. Two principles keep the rating honest: 1. **The bracket is the benchmark, and it's determined STRICTLY.** Five stars means "matches or beats the comparable proven top lists *for this bracket*", not "a cEDH deck" and not "it works". Determine the deck's **actual** bracket from concrete signals only (Game Changer count, early two-card combos, MLD, chained extra turns, fast mana + tutor density — see `references/brackets.md`), and **report it against the target the user named.** A well-tuned, optimized deck with **0 Game Changers, no combos, no MLD** is **Bracket 2**, not 3 — being good is not a B3 signal. If the deck and its claimed bracket disagree, say so plainly (and a deck stuffed with Game Changers is not a five-star "Bracket 2" deck; it's mis-bracketed). 2. **The score is built from evidence, not vibes — and rounds DOWN when evidence is thin.** Every dimension is scored against the strict rubric in `references/rating.md`, backed by hard numbers from `scripts/analyze_deck.py`, by **reading the actual Oracle text**, and — for Staples and Synergy — against **comparison data** (EDHREC inclusion rates/ranks and comparable real lists for this commander). A deck that merely *functions* is **★★★ (3)**, not 4; 4–5 must be proven against the comparables. When you can't pull that data, default to the lower score and say so. ## Start here: paste your decklist and name a bracket - The user provides their **decklist inline** (a Moxfield/Archidekt export, a `1 Card Name` list, or a rough list), or a **Moxfield/Archidekt link** — for a link, run `scripts/import_deck.py ` to pull it via the site JSON API (it falls back to asking for a paste if the deck is private/unreachable; never invents a list). To analyze, **write the list to a temp file and run the analyzer** (see below) — the parser tolerates counts or no counts, `1x`, `(SET) 123` and `*CMDR*` markers, and section headers. - Confirm the **target bracket (1–5)** — the power level to judge the deck *against*. If the user doesn't give one, **ask**, and offer to also tell them which bracket the deck actually looks like. Default to rating at the deck's apparent bracket if they're unsure. See `references/brackets.md`. - Identify the **commander** (a `*CMDR*`/Commander-section card, or ask) and its **color identity** — needed for the legality check and for reading synergy against the right card. If the pasted list isn't ~100 cards, is malformed, or the commander is ambiguous, say what you found and confirm with the user before rating. ## How to run the analysis The bundled **`scripts/analyze_deck.py`** does the measuring; **you** do the judging. 1. Save the pasted list to a temp file (e.g. `.mtg/analysis/-input.txt`, or any temp path). 2. Run `python "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/analyze_deck.py" --commander "" --json` (add `--identity ` if you already know it). It looks every card up in the local Scryfall database and returns: total cards, land count, **mana curve**, average MV, **EDHREC-rank staple signal** (premier ≤500 / staple ≤1500 / played ≤4000 counts + median rank + unranked count), **Game Changer count**, **off-color-identity** cards, total price (Cardmarket EUR), any **cards not found**, and the **full per-card data including Oracle text and type line**. 3. **Read the per-card Oracle text** to classify each card's role (land / ramp / card advantage / interaction / board wipe / synergy / wincon) and to **score synergy** — `analyze_deck.py` gives the objective stats, but classification and synergy are judgment calls that need the wording. Use `scryfall_search.py` for anything extra: `--named "Card"` for a card's exact text, `function:ramp id<=` / `function:removal …` / `is:gamechanger id<=` to spot staples the deck is *missing*. 4. **Pull the comparable real decklists** so the Staples and Synergy dimensions are scored against *evidence*, not opinion: `python "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/edhrec_fetch.py" ""` (top/staple + high-synergy cards with inclusion rates), `--average` (the average ~100-card list), and `--theme`/`--budget` for variants. Compare the deck's contents to these inclusion rates: which high-inclusion staples it runs vs. misses, and whether its engine is as dense as the proven lists. If EDHREC is unreachable, say so and treat proven-inclusion claims as lower-confidence — and rate **down** accordingly (`references/rating.md`). If the database can't be built or reached, fall back to `web_search`/`web_fetch` of Scryfall pages (and say prices/newest cards are unverified), or to known MTG knowledge — but prefer the local DB; it's what makes the staple and curve signals reliable. ## Score it: the five-dimension rubric Apply the rubric in **`references/rating.md`** (read it). Score each dimension 1–5 (half-stars allowed), then combine by weight and apply the gates: 1. **Structure & consistency** *(30%)* — lands ~37–38, ramp ~10–11, **≥12 net-positive card advantage**, ~10 interaction + 2–4 wipes, a curve with only 3–4 cards at MV 6+. The fundamentals that win games. 2. **Synergy density** *(25%)* — via `references/synergy.md`: what fraction of non-structural cards clear the **≥2–3 points of contact** bar, the average contact count, and whether engines reinforce each other. 3. **Staples & card quality** *(20%)* — scored against **comparison data**: the EDHREC-rank signal **and** the inclusion rates of the comparable lists. Does it run the high-inclusion pieces its plan wants, at the rate the proven lists do, and what high-inclusion cards is it missing? Scaled to bracket (B1–2 lenient, B3–5 demanding); round down when the data is thin. 4. **Win conditions & closing power** *(15%)* — 3–4 real, repeatable, resilient ways to actually end the game from a normal board (one unremarkable wincon is a 3, not a 4). 5. **Bracket calibration** *(10%, partial gate)* — determine the **actual** bracket from the signals (Game Changer count, early combos, MLD, chained extra turns, fast mana + tutor density) and compare to the target. Actual < target is the common honest case (report it, don't inflate elsewhere); actual > target/violation is **mis-bracketed** → report the real bracket and cap the score. See `references/brackets.md`. `overall = 0.30·structure + 0.25·synergy + 0.20·staples + 0.15·wincons + 0.10·bracket`, rounded to the nearest half-star, then capped by the gates in `references/rating.md` — note the **"it just functions" ceiling of ★★★** (4+ must be earned against comparable lists), plus the caps for a dimension at 1, a missing fundamental, or a mis-bracket. ## The deliverable Hand back a **rating report** in the conversation: 1. **Headline** — e.g. `★★★½ (3.5/5) — a solid Bracket 2 deck`, plus the **actual bracket** stated against the target if they differ (e.g. "you asked for B3; as built it's B2"). 2. **Scorecard** — the five dimensions, each with its stars and the **numbers/evidence behind it** (show the analyzer's stats and inclusion-rate comparisons: "Structure ★★★ — 37 lands, 11 ramp, 13 draw, 9 interaction + 3 wipes; on target but not tighter than the comparable lists, so 3"). 3. **Strengths (2–3)** and **weaknesses (2–3)** — concrete, each tied to a dimension and, where possible, to comparison data. 4. **Move-up / move-down note** — what would raise the deck one bracket and what would drop it (`references/brackets.md`). 5. **Highest-impact fixes (3–5)** — cheapest-first changes that would raise the score most, and an **offer to hand off to `mtg-edh-upgrade`** to actually make the swaps (carry over the diagnosis). Keep it honest and specific, and **err toward the lower score when evidence is thin** — "card advantage is thin (9, want 12+); EDHREC lists average 14" beats "could be better". **Saving the report is optional — write a file only if the user asks.** When they do, save it as `.mtg/analysis/.md` in the resolved workspace (slug = commander name, kebab-case) and share it with `present_files`. Don't write decks or import lists here — that's the upgrade skill's job. ## The `.mtg` workspace This skill mostly reads; it writes only the temp input file and (on request) a report. Its I/O lives in the same **workspace** the other MTG skills use, resolved in this order: 1. **`$MTG_HOME`**, if set — the user's portable data location (e.g. a private `mtg-data` git repo; see `SYNCING.md`). Use it even if subfolders don't exist yet — create them. 2. Otherwise the nearest **`.mtg/`** at or above the current working directory (conventionally git-ignored). Run `python "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/scryfall_search.py" --paths` to print the resolved paths; analysis files go in a sibling `analysis/` folder. If `$MTG_HOME` is unset and there's no clear working directory and the user wants a file saved, ask where the workspace should live first; a pure in-chat rating that writes only a temp file doesn't need this. If a `collection/` file exists, you can note which suggested fixes the user already owns. **Scryfall reads come from the local card database** (`scripts/analyze_deck.py` and `scripts/scryfall_search.py` both read `.mtg/database/cards.sqlite`, built from Scryfall bulk data — see the **mtg-db** skill; built automatically on first use, one-time ~78 MB compressed). If it reports the data is **stale (>30 days)**, mention prices and the staple signal may have shifted and **ask** whether to refresh first. `function:`/`otag:` (Tagger) queries route to the live API automatically. ## Quality bar before you hand it over - **Every dimension score is backed by the analyzer's numbers and by Oracle text you actually read** — the synergy score in particular names specific high-contact and zero-contact cards, not a guess. - **The headline rating is consistent with the rubric and the gates** (`references/rating.md`) — a deck missing a fundamental or breaking its bracket isn't quietly handed four stars. - **Bracket is reported two ways** when they differ: the rating *as the target bracket*, and the deck's *actual* bracket placement. - **Color identity is checked** — `analyze_deck.py` flags off-identity cards; surface any (one off-identity pip makes a card illegal in the deck) and any cards not found in the database (so the user can fix typos). - **The fixes are concrete, prioritized, and cheapest-first**, with an offer to hand off to `mtg-edh-upgrade`.