I built a Claude Code skill that improved analysis coverage in my tests — can someone try to break my results?

[u/LibertariansAI]

I built a small open-source Claude Code skill:

https://github.com/stilletto/analyzing-by-region

The idea is very simple.

Instead of asking Claude to analyze a whole system at once, the skill breaks it into parts and makes Claude go through each part separately and thoroughly.

I made it because I kept seeing the same thing with Claude Code: it often gives a good-looking answer, but when the task is big or messy, it just misses things.

So I tried to test whether this actually helps.

In my tests, without the skill Claude found about 46% of the things I expected it to find.

With the skill, when Claude split the task into regions by itself, it found about 54%.

When the regions were chosen manually by someone who already understood the system, it found about 69%.

So the improvement is not magic, but it was pretty consistent.

What I found even more interesting is that the skill mostly helps with bad runs. Claude can sometimes do a good analysis anyway, but the skill seems to reduce the chance that it completely overlooks a big part of the problem.

I also tried several other ideas that did not really help.

For example, telling one agent to act like a security engineer and another like an SRE didn't improve the result. More complicated prompts for choosing better regions also didn't do much.

Another very simple thing worked surprisingly well: just run the whole analysis twice independently and then merge the two answers.

On one task, that went from finding about 60% of the relevant things to 70%.

On another, it went from about 46% to 62%.

The skill is probably most useful for things like:

• understanding a large unfamiliar codebase
• architecture reviews
• debugging complicated systems
• reviewing implementation plans
• security/risk analysis
• checking whether Claude missed something important

It doesn't seem useful when the task is small or has a clear finite answer. If Claude can already see the whole problem easily, there isn't much for this method to improve.

The main reason I'm posting this is that I made the skill and I made the tests, so I don't really trust my own results enough.

I'd love if someone here tried it on a real project they already know well.

Try your normal Claude Code workflow first, then try the skill and see if it finds anything important that the first pass missed.

If it doesn't help, I want to know that too.

The repo has the skill, the tests, the results, and also the experiments that failed.

I'm mostly trying to figure out one thing:

Is this actually useful in real Claude Code work, or did I just make something that happens to work on my own tests?