odyssey4me/gerrit
Submit, amend, and review Gerrit changes using git-review CLI. Use when asked to submit a patchset, download a change, rebase a change request, check CR status, or manage code reviews in Gerrit.
92
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
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 skill description that clearly identifies its domain (Gerrit code reviews via git-review CLI), lists specific concrete actions, and includes an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms. The description is concise, uses third-person voice, and is highly distinctive due to its Gerrit-specific terminology.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: submit, amend, review Gerrit changes, submit a patchset, download a change, rebase a change request, check CR status, manage code reviews. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (submit, amend, and review Gerrit changes using git-review CLI) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause listing specific trigger scenarios like submitting patchsets, downloading changes, rebasing, checking status). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'submit a patchset', 'download a change', 'rebase', 'CR status', 'code reviews', 'Gerrit', 'git-review'. These cover common variations of how users would phrase requests. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche: Gerrit-specific code review workflows using git-review CLI. The domain-specific terms (Gerrit, patchset, git-review, CR status) make it very unlikely to conflict with generic git or code review skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, well-structured skill with strong actionability and good progressive disclosure. The main weaknesses are some verbosity in the authentication and configuration sections that could be tightened, and the workflow examples could benefit from explicit error recovery steps (e.g., what to do when git review fails due to rebase conflicts). Overall it serves as an effective reference for Gerrit operations.
Suggestions
Trim the Authentication section by removing generic SSH key generation instructions and the explanation of multiple auth methods—focus only on the git-review-specific configuration needed.
Add error recovery guidance to the Daily Workflow example, e.g., what to do if `git review` fails with a rebase conflict or if the change doesn't appear in the list after submission.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary sections like explaining authentication methods Claude already knows, and the authentication setup steps (generating SSH keys, adding to Gerrit UI) are generic knowledge. The configuration section repeats information already shown in Initial Setup. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Commands are concrete, copy-paste ready, and well-documented with specific flags and arguments. Both the git-review CLI commands and the wrapper script usage provide fully executable examples with clear parameters. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Daily Workflow example shows a clear sequence with verification steps (checking changes list, viewing change after amend), but lacks explicit error handling or feedback loops for common failure cases like merge conflicts, authentication failures, or failed submissions. The 'submit then verify' pattern is good but there's no guidance on what to do if verification fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure with a clear overview in the main file and well-signaled one-level-deep references to advanced-usage.md, troubleshooting.md, common-workflows.md, and permissions.md. The main file covers the essentials while appropriately deferring detailed content. | 3 / 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