crocoder-dev/opencode-sce-atomic-commit
Write atomic, repo-style git commits from a change summary or diff.
91
91%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
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, well-crafted description that concisely covers specific capabilities, includes natural trigger terms, and explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it. It uses proper third-person voice and is clearly distinguishable from other potential skills. The description is comparable to the good examples in the rubric.
| 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 strong natural trigger terms 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'. This is a well-defined niche unlikely to conflict with general code review or git workflow skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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, actionable skill for generating atomic commit messages. Its strengths are the clear 7-step workflow with validation checkpoints and explicit handling of edge cases (ambiguous plan references, mixed changes). Minor weaknesses include slight verbosity in places and the lack of concrete before/after commit message examples that would make the format specification even more immediately usable.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 concrete before/after examples showing a staged diff summary mapped to a final commit message proposal to make the output format immediately tangible.
Tighten the 'Inputs' section—Claude doesn't need to be told it can accept a 'changed file list with notes' or 'before/after behavior notes' as these are obvious input forms.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts Claude knows, but some sections are slightly verbose—e.g., the 'Inputs' section listing obvious input types, and some procedural steps could be tightened. The anti-patterns list and context-file gating section add useful but somewhat wordy guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, specific guidance: exact commit message format patterns, specific imperative verbs to use, clear rules for when to add body content, and explicit examples of scope patterns. The anti-patterns list gives concrete negative examples. While there are no full commit message examples shown, the format specification is precise enough to be directly actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step procedure is clearly sequenced with logical progression from analysis through validation. It includes explicit validation in step 7, a feedback loop for ambiguous plan references (stop and ask for clarification in step 5), and split guidance with clear criteria. The workflow handles edge cases like mixed context/non-context changes. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear section headers and logical grouping, but it's a single monolithic file with no references to external resources. The context-file guidance gating and anti-patterns sections could potentially be split out for a cleaner overview, though the skill is borderline in length where this becomes necessary. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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