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

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 edge-case handling (ambiguous plan references, mixed vs. context-only changes), and useful anti-patterns. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete input/output examples—a sample diff paired with the expected commit message(s) would significantly improve actionability. Some minor verbosity could be trimmed without losing clarity.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 concrete examples showing a sample staged diff (or summary) and the exact commit message output, including one example with a split recommendation.

Trim the 'Inputs' section to a single line since Claude can infer acceptable input formats from the procedure, or merge it into the Goal section.

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 useful but somewhat verbose conditional logic.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides clear procedural steps and specific formatting rules (scope: Subject pattern, imperative verbs list, plan slug/task ID requirements), but lacks concrete input/output examples showing a sample diff and the resulting commit message(s). Without executable examples, Claude must infer the exact output format.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 7-step procedure is clearly sequenced with explicit validation in step 7, a feedback loop for ambiguous plan references (stop and ask for clarification in step 5), and split guidance with rationale in step 6. The workflow handles edge cases and includes gating logic for context-file changes.	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, Context-file guidance gating, Anti-patterns) that serve as a clean single-file reference. No external references are needed for this scope.	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