$npx -y skills add vercel-labs/next-browser --skill synthesize-transcriptAnalyze an agent transcript for generalizable learnings about next-browser CLI usage, then propose SKILL.md updates, feature requests, and bug fixes.
| 1 | # synthesize-transcript |
| 2 | |
| 3 | Read the transcript at: |
| 4 | |
| 5 | $ARGUMENTS |
| 6 | |
| 7 | Then analyze how the agent used `next-browser` commands. Your goals are to: |
| 8 | 1. Find **generalizable learnings** — things that would help any agent using |
| 9 | this tool — and propose targeted additions to `SKILL.md`. |
| 10 | 2. Surface **feature requests and bug fixes** for the CLI itself — gaps in |
| 11 | functionality, incorrect behavior, or misleading output that should be |
| 12 | fixed in code. |
| 13 | |
| 14 | ## Process |
| 15 | |
| 16 | 1. **Read the transcript** in chunks (it's large). Focus on assistant |
| 17 | messages and tool calls/results involving `next-browser` commands. |
| 18 | |
| 19 | 2. **Identify friction and patterns.** Look for: |
| 20 | - Commands that failed or produced unexpected results |
| 21 | - Misunderstandings about how a command works |
| 22 | - Workflows the agent discovered through trial and error |
| 23 | - Repeated mistakes that guidance would prevent |
| 24 | |
| 25 | 3. **Filter ruthlessly for overfitting.** For each candidate learning, ask: |
| 26 | - Would a different agent on a different project hit this same issue? |
| 27 | - Is this a property of the *tool* or a property of *this debugging session*? |
| 28 | - Is this already obvious from the command's existing docs? |
| 29 | - Is this prescribing a specific workflow vs documenting tool behavior? |
| 30 | |
| 31 | **Discard** anything that is: |
| 32 | - A workflow pattern specific to one task (e.g., "copy dirs for before/after") |
| 33 | - Advice an agent could derive from reading existing docs |
| 34 | - Specific to a particular project, page, or debugging scenario |
| 35 | |
| 36 | **Keep** as SKILL.md learnings: |
| 37 | - Genuine tool constraints any agent would hit (e.g., eval quirks, Playwright behavior) |
| 38 | - Non-obvious failure modes with clear mitigations |
| 39 | - Command interactions that aren't documented |
| 40 | |
| 41 | **Separate out** as feature requests or bug fixes (not SKILL.md changes): |
| 42 | - Workarounds for bugs that should be fixed in code |
| 43 | - Missing functionality the agent needed and had to hack around |
| 44 | - Misleading output or docs that don't match actual behavior |
| 45 | |
| 46 | 4. **Present your findings.** Organize into two sections: |
| 47 | |
| 48 | **SKILL.md learnings** — for each, show: |
| 49 | - What happened in the transcript (brief) |
| 50 | - The proposed SKILL.md addition (exact text) |
| 51 | - Why it's generalizable (one sentence) |
| 52 | |
| 53 | **Feature requests / bug fixes** — for each, show: |
| 54 | - What happened in the transcript (brief) |
| 55 | - What the CLI should do instead (proposed behavior) |
| 56 | - Whether it's a bug fix (current behavior is wrong) or a feature |
| 57 | request (new capability needed) |
| 58 | |
| 59 | Ask the user to approve or reject each item before acting. |
| 60 | |
| 61 | 5. **Consider new Scenarios.** Beyond command-level learnings, check |
| 62 | whether the transcript reveals a scenario not covered in the existing |
| 63 | `## Scenarios` section of SKILL.md. A scenario earns its place only if |
| 64 | it requires **domain knowledge an agent wouldn't derive on its own** — |
| 65 | non-obvious mental models, ordering constraints, or decision frameworks |
| 66 | that go beyond "use these commands and compare results." |
| 67 | |
| 68 | Ask yourself: could an agent figure out this workflow just by reading |
| 69 | the existing command docs and applying basic debugging instincts? If |
| 70 | yes, it's not a scenario — it's just competent tool use. If no — if it |
| 71 | requires understanding something about React, Next.js, or the PPR model |
| 72 | that isn't in the CLI docs — then it's a candidate. |
| 73 | |
| 74 | Present scenario candidates the same way as command learnings: evidence |
| 75 | from the transcript, proposed text, and why an agent couldn't get there |
| 76 | alone. Ask for approval before adding. |
| 77 | |
| 78 | 6. **Apply approved changes.** |
| 79 | - SKILL.md learnings → add inline to the relevant command section in |
| 80 | the repo-root `SKILL.md`. Scenarios → `## Scenarios` section. |
| 81 | - Feature requests / bug fixes → we own this package, so implement |
| 82 | the fix or feature directly in the codebase. For non-trivial |
| 83 | changes, plan the implementation and confirm with the user before |
| 84 | writing code. Include the transcript evidence in commit messages |
| 85 | or PR descriptions for context. |
| 86 | |
| 87 | ## Anti-patterns |
| 88 | |
| 89 | - Don't add "tips" or "best practices" sections. Guidance belongs next to |
| 90 | the command it's about. |
| 91 | - Don't add workflow recipes ("first do X, then Y, then Z"). Document tool |
| 92 | behavior, not agent strategy. |
| 93 | - Don't inflate existing docs with caveats that rarely apply. |
| 94 | - When in doubt, leave it out. A wrong or noisy addition is worse than a |
| 95 | missing one. |