This is a strong, well-crafted description that concisely covers what the skill does and when to use it. It uses third person voice, includes natural trigger terms, and carves out a distinct niche around git commit authoring and splitting. The description is comparable to the rubric's good examples in quality.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: writing atomic commits, splitting work into coherent commits, and reviewing whether a commit is too broad. These are distinct, actionable capabilities.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both what ('Write atomic, repo-style git commits from a change summary or diff') and when ('Use when preparing commit messages, splitting work into coherent commits, or reviewing whether a commit is too broad').	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural keywords users would say: 'git commits', 'commit messages', 'diff', 'change summary', 'splitting work', 'atomic'. These cover common variations of how users discuss commit-related tasks.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clearly scoped to git commit authoring with specific triggers like 'atomic commits', 'splitting work into commits', and 'commit too broad'. Unlikely to conflict with general git or code review skills due to the narrow focus on commit message crafting.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Implementation

70%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-structured skill with a clear multi-step workflow, good validation checkpoints, and appropriate anti-pattern guidance. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete input→output examples (e.g., a sample diff producing a sample commit message), which would significantly improve actionability. The content is mostly concise but has some redundancy between sections.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 concrete examples showing a sample staged diff (or summary) mapped to the exact proposed commit message output, demonstrating both single-commit and split-commit scenarios.

Remove or consolidate redundant guidance between the anti-patterns section and the procedure steps (e.g., 'inventing plan slugs' is already covered in step 5).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is mostly efficient and well-structured, but includes some sections that could be tightened—e.g., the 'Inputs' section lists things Claude can infer, and the anti-patterns section partially restates what the procedure already covers. The context-file guidance gating section adds moderate value but could be more concise.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides a clear procedure and specific formatting rules (scope: Subject pattern, imperative verbs), but lacks concrete examples of input diffs mapped to output commit messages. Without a worked example showing a diff → proposed commit message(s), Claude must infer the exact output format rather than having a copy-paste-ready template.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 7-step procedure is clearly sequenced with explicit validation (step 7), a feedback loop for ambiguous plan references (step 5: stop and ask), and split guidance (step 6). The gating logic for context files adds an additional checkpoint. This is a well-structured workflow with appropriate verification steps.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	For a standalone skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections (Goal, Inputs, Output format, Procedure, Anti-patterns) that are easy to scan. The skill is appropriately sized for a single file with no need for external references.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation