A concise, well-structured skill with clear sequential workflow and appropriate validation checkpoints (secret scanning, intentional staging, post-commit verification). The main weakness is step 5, which is slightly vague about how to actually invoke the commit with the template, and the skill would benefit from a concrete example of a complete commit message.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example of a complete commit message (subject + body with template sections) to make step 4-5 fully actionable.

Clarify step 5 by specifying the exact command, e.g., `git commit -t .github/commit-template.txt` or `git commit -m '...'` with the message inline.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Every line serves a purpose. No unnecessary explanations of what git is or how commits work. The enumerated types and constraints are all project-specific knowledge Claude needs.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides specific git commands and clear rules (72-char limit, kebab-case scope), but step 5 is vague ('paste the generated message') and lacks an executable example of a complete commit message or the exact `git commit` invocation with template flag.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequential steps with an explicit security validation checkpoint (step 2: check for secrets), intentional staging guidance (step 3: avoid `git add .`), and a verification step (step 6: `git log -1 --stat`). The constraint boundary ('do not push') is explicit.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	For a short, single-purpose skill this is well-organized. It references external files appropriately (`.github/commit-template.txt`, `git/cp.md`) at one level deep with clear signaling.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

32%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is concise and communicates the core action (staging and creating a Conventional Commit without pushing), but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause which significantly hurts completeness. It also misses common natural trigger terms users would say like 'git commit', 'commit message', or 'git add', reducing discoverability.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to commit staged changes, write a commit message, or make a git commit following Conventional Commits format.'

Include natural trigger terms users would say: 'git commit', 'commit message', 'git add', 'staged changes', 'conventional commit'.

Expand the capability list slightly, e.g., mention analyzing diffs, selecting commit type (feat/fix/chore), or generating commit messages.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (git commits) and two specific actions (stage changes, create a Conventional Commit), but doesn't elaborate on additional capabilities like selecting commit types, generating messages from diffs, or handling scopes.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what the skill does but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, and per the rubric a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 2 — but since the 'when' is entirely absent (not even implied beyond the action itself), this scores a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms like 'stage', 'working tree changes', 'Conventional Commit', and 'no push', but misses common user-facing variations like 'git commit', 'commit message', 'staged changes', or 'git add'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The mention of 'Conventional Commit' and 'no push' adds some distinctiveness, but 'stage working tree changes' could overlap with general git workflow skills. The specificity of 'Conventional Commit' helps but isn't enough for a 3.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 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 months ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation