jbvc/git-commit-push
Stage, commit, and push the current branch following git governance rules.
71
71%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
50%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 reasonably specific about the git workflow actions it covers but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for skill selection. The mention of 'git governance rules' adds some differentiation but remains vague without further elaboration on what those rules entail.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to commit and push changes, or asks to save/check in their work to git.'
Expand trigger terms to include common user phrases like 'save my changes', 'check in code', 'git push', 'submit my work'.
Briefly clarify what 'git governance rules' means (e.g., 'conventional commit messages, branch naming conventions, pre-push checks') to improve specificity and distinctiveness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (git) and lists some actions (stage, commit, push), but doesn't elaborate on what 'git governance rules' entails or list more specific capabilities like message formatting, branch protection, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what' (stage, commit, push following governance rules), but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps this at 2 per the rubric. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural terms like 'stage', 'commit', 'push', and 'branch' that users would say, but misses common variations like 'git push', 'save changes', 'check in code', or 'git commit'. 'Git governance rules' is somewhat jargon-heavy. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'git governance rules' adds some distinctiveness beyond a generic git skill, but 'stage, commit, and push' could overlap with other git-related skills. The governance aspect is not specific enough to clearly carve out a unique niche. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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.
A concise, well-sequenced workflow for git commit-and-push operations with good validation checkpoints (local checks, commitlint retry, CI wait). The main weakness is that the commit message crafting step references a template and required blocks without showing an example, which reduces actionability. Overall a solid, lean skill that could benefit from a brief example commit message.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a properly formatted commit message showing the Context / Testing / Reviewers blocks to improve actionability.
Link or briefly show the structure of `.github/commit-template.txt` so Claude doesn't have to guess the expected format.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line serves a purpose. No unnecessary explanations of what git is or how commits work. The Conventional Commit types are listed inline efficiently. Assumes Claude knows git fundamentals. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Commands are concrete and executable (git add, git commit, git push, gh workflow run), but some steps are vague—e.g., 'Craft a Conventional Commit message' with reference to a template file without showing the template format, and 'include Context / Testing / Reviewers blocks' without examples of what those blocks look like. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequential steps from pre-commit review through push and CI verification. Includes explicit validation checkpoints: step 1 runs local checks, step 4 has a retry loop for commitlint failures, and step 7 waits for CI before proceeding. Good feedback loop on commit message failure. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References `.github/commit-template.txt` and `ci-quality-gate.yml` but doesn't link to them or explain where to find governance rules mentioned in the description. For a short skill this is acceptable, but the reference to the commit template without showing its structure or linking to it is a gap. | 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