ambaba/github-pr-lister
List all PRs authored by the user across specified repos since a given date with full pagination.
94
94%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that concisely communicates specific capabilities, includes explicit trigger phrases, and clearly defines both what the skill does and when it should be used. It uses proper third-person voice and provides enough detail about outputs (titles, descriptions, repos, merge dates, review counts) to distinguish it from other GitHub-related skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions and outputs: listing PRs, returning titles, descriptions, repos, merge dates, and review counts. These are concrete, well-defined capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (list PRs with titles, descriptions, repos, merge dates, review counts) and 'when' (explicit 'Trigger on:' clause with specific phrases). Both are well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural trigger phrases users would actually say: 'list my PRs', 'my pull requests since', 'github contributions'. These cover common variations including abbreviations (PRs) and full terms (pull requests). | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to a specific niche: listing user-authored PRs across repos since a date. The combination of GitHub PRs, authorship, date filtering, and specific output fields makes it highly distinct and unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill with fully executable CLI commands, clear workflow sequencing, and thorough error handling and validation. The pagination strategy with bisection is a particularly good detail. Minor conciseness improvements could be made by trimming the Scope section and some framing language, but overall the skill is highly actionable and well-organized.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient with good use of tables and structured sections, but includes some unnecessary framing (e.g., 'Leaf skill' description, 'Scope' section explaining what's out of scope, and the 'Rules' section restating what's implicit). The inputs section could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable `gh` CLI commands with concrete flags and parameters for every step. The output format is specified with a concrete YAML example, and pagination logic includes specific thresholds and a bisection strategy. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 3-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints before returning results (count verification, skipped repo check, ceiling warnings). Error handling is comprehensive with a well-structured table covering auth failures, 404s, rate limits, and network errors. Pagination includes a feedback loop (re-fetch with higher limit, then bisect). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a standalone skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized into logical sections (Inputs, Workflow, Pagination, Validation, Error Handling) that are appropriately sized. No monolithic walls of text, and no content that needs to be split into separate files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents