The description is concise and identifies a clear action but is too minimal to be effective for skill selection. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause, misses common trigger term variations like 'PR' or 'merge request', and doesn't enumerate related capabilities that would help Claude distinguish this skill from other git/GitHub-related skills.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to open a PR, submit a pull request, or push changes for review.'

Include common trigger term variations such as 'PR', 'merge request', 'open a PR', 'submit for review' to improve matching.

List additional specific capabilities if applicable, such as setting PR title/body, adding reviewers, or specifying base branch.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a specific action ('Create a pull request') and a context ('from the current branch'), but only describes a single action without listing additional related capabilities like updating PRs, adding reviewers, or setting labels.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (create a pull request) but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'when' is entirely absent, this scores a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes 'pull request' and 'branch' which are natural terms users would say, but misses common variations like 'PR', 'open a PR', 'submit for review', 'merge request', or 'push and create PR'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Fairly specific to pull request creation which narrows the domain, but could overlap with broader git workflow skills or GitHub interaction skills without clearer scoping of when exactly this skill should be chosen.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

87%

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

A concise, well-structured skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for creating a pull request. The main weakness is the lack of explicit error handling or validation feedback loops—for instance, what happens if the CI gate hasn't passed or if the PR creation command fails. Otherwise, it's lean and effective.

Suggestions

Add brief error handling guidance for common failure modes (e.g., CI gate not passed, branch not pushed, `gh pr create` failure) to improve workflow clarity.

Consider adding a verification step after PR creation, such as `gh pr view --web` or checking the PR status, to close the feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Every line serves a purpose. No unnecessary explanations of what PRs are, how git works, or what GitHub CLI does. Variables are defined tersely and the workflow is lean.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides a concrete, copy-paste-ready `gh pr create` command with specific flags, and actionable steps for labels and fallback behavior when no template exists.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps are clearly sequenced and include prerequisite checks (review, security-scan, CI gate). However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery steps—e.g., what to do if `gh pr create` fails, if CI hasn't passed, or if the branch is behind the target.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	This is a short, single-purpose skill under 50 lines. The content is well-organized with a Variables section and a numbered Workflow section, which is appropriate for its scope without needing external references.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Reviewed

1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation