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
—
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 actions, and provides explicit trigger guidance. The description is concise, uses third-person voice, and includes domain-specific terminology that makes it highly distinguishable from other skills.
| 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
85%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 strong actionability and good progressive disclosure. The workflows include verification steps which is excellent practice. The main weakness is some verbosity in the authentication and configuration sections that could be tightened—Claude doesn't need explanations of SSH keys or authentication method descriptions.
Suggestions
Trim the Authentication section: remove the explanation of multiple auth methods and the SSH key generation steps (Claude knows these); keep only the Gerrit-specific config commands.
Remove the 'Model Guidance' section as it's meta-information not useful for task execution.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary content like explaining authentication methods Claude already knows, the 'Model Guidance' section, and some redundant commentary. The authentication section could be tightened significantly. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Commands are concrete, copy-paste ready, and cover the full range of operations (submit, download, amend, configure). Examples use real command syntax with clear flags and arguments. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Daily Workflow section provides clear sequenced steps with verification checkpoints (e.g., 'Verify submission' after submitting, 'Verify new patchset uploaded' after amending). The reviewing workflow also includes cleanup steps. Multi-step processes are well-ordered. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to advanced-usage.md, troubleshooting.md, common-workflows.md, and permissions.md. Core content is inline while specialized topics are appropriately delegated to reference files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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