odyssey4me/gitlab
Create and manage GitLab issues, merge requests, pipelines, and repositories using the glab CLI. Use when asked to open an MR, review a merge request, check CI/CD pipelines, list issues, or manage code review on GitLab.
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 the tool (glab CLI), the platform (GitLab), specific capabilities (issues, merge requests, pipelines, repositories), and explicit trigger conditions. It uses third person voice, includes natural user terms and abbreviations, and is clearly distinguishable from similar GitHub or generic git skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: create and manage issues, merge requests, pipelines, and repositories. The tool (glab CLI) is also explicitly named. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (create and manage GitLab issues, MRs, pipelines, repos using glab CLI) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with specific trigger scenarios like opening an MR, checking pipelines, listing issues). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'MR', 'merge request', 'CI/CD pipelines', 'issues', 'code review', 'GitLab', and 'glab'. Covers both abbreviations and full terms. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to GitLab and the glab CLI, which distinguishes it from GitHub-related skills or generic git skills. The mention of GitLab-specific terminology (merge requests vs pull requests, glab vs gh) makes it highly distinctive. | 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 that provides comprehensive coverage of GitLab CLI operations with concrete, executable commands. Its main weakness is verbosity—many basic glab commands with self-evident comments could be trimmed since Claude can infer usage patterns. The workflow examples include some verification steps but could benefit from more explicit error handling for action commands.
Suggestions
Trim the direct glab command reference sections significantly—Claude can infer basic CRUD patterns from a few examples. Link to official docs instead of listing every subcommand with obvious descriptions.
Add explicit error handling to workflow examples (e.g., 'If glab mr create fails with authentication error, run glab auth login and retry') to improve workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some content Claude already knows (e.g., listing every basic glab subcommand with obvious descriptions like '# List issues', '# View issue details'). The Configuration, Aliases, and Troubleshooting sections add bulk that could be trimmed or moved to references. The command reference sections largely duplicate official docs. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | All commands are concrete, copy-paste ready bash commands with specific flags and arguments. The examples section shows real multi-step workflows with actual commands. Both the wrapper script and direct glab usage are clearly demonstrated with executable examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The examples section includes multi-step workflows with some verification steps (e.g., 'Verify approval was recorded', 'Verify MR was created and linked'), but these are informal comments rather than explicit validation checkpoints with error recovery. The Daily MR Review and Create Issue workflows show sequences but lack explicit 'if error, then...' feedback loops for action commands that could fail. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill has a clear overview structure with well-signaled references to external files (permissions.md, common-workflows.md) and official documentation links. Content is appropriately split between quick-reference commands inline and detailed workflows in referenced files. Navigation is straightforward with one-level-deep references. | 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