branch-wrapup
Pre-PR quality gate that runs build, type-check, lint, test, security scans, and finishes with a conventional commit. Use before creating a PR, after completing features, or when wrapping up a branch.
62
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.github/skills/branch-wrapup/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
85%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 description that clearly communicates both what the skill does and when to use it. The specific enumeration of actions (build, type-check, lint, test, security scans, conventional commit) makes it easy to understand the scope. The main weakness is that trigger terms could be expanded to include common variations like 'pull request' (spelled out) or 'ready to merge'.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'pull request', 'ready to merge', 'pre-merge checks', or 'code review prep' to improve discoverability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'runs build, type-check, lint, test, security scans, and finishes with a conventional commit.' These are all distinct, well-defined development actions. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('runs build, type-check, lint, test, security scans, and finishes with a conventional commit') and when ('Use before creating a PR, after completing features, or when wrapping up a branch') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some natural terms like 'PR', 'build', 'lint', 'test', 'commit', 'branch', and 'features', but misses common variations users might say such as 'pull request', 'code review prep', 'pre-merge checks', 'CI checks', or 'ready to merge'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The concept of a 'pre-PR quality gate' combining multiple checks into a single workflow is a clear niche. The combination of build + type-check + lint + test + security + commit is distinctive and unlikely to conflict with individual linting or testing skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill excels at actionability and workflow clarity—every phase has concrete commands, explicit gate rules, and a clear sequencing table. However, it is significantly over-verbose, explaining things Claude already knows (what build failures catch, what linting does, what conventional commits are) and including sections like Troubleshooting and Continuous Mode that bloat the token budget. The content would benefit from aggressive trimming to roughly half its current size.
Suggestions
Remove all 'What it catches' bullet lists under each phase—Claude already knows what build, lint, and type checks catch. Keep only the commands and gate behavior.
Move Troubleshooting, Continuous Mode, and Integration with Other Skills sections to a separate reference file or remove them entirely to reduce token cost.
Collapse the OWASP Phase 6 section to just the composable skill call and gate behavior—the long list of what it catches duplicates the referenced skill's content.
Remove the 'When to Use' section entirely; the description/purpose already covers this, and Claude can infer appropriate usage contexts.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~350+ lines. It over-explains what each phase 'catches' (Claude knows what a build check catches), includes redundant 'When to Use' bullet lists, explains concepts like conventional commits that Claude already knows, and the OWASP phase repeats a long list of things the referenced skill already covers. The 'Continuous Mode' and 'Troubleshooting' sections add significant padding. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Every phase includes concrete, executable PowerShell commands that are copy-paste ready. The commit message format is specific, the gate rules are explicit, and the output format is fully specified with a template. The security scan patterns are real regex patterns against real file paths. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 10-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit blocking/non-blocking gate rules summarized in a table. Each phase has clear pass/fail criteria, and there are explicit stop conditions (P0 smells, HIGH OWASP findings, build failures). The feedback loop is implicit but the gate behavior is unambiguous—fix and re-run. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (owasp-security-review SKILL.md, verify.ps1, copilot-instructions.md) which is good, but the main file itself is monolithic with enormous inline content that could be split. The integration table and troubleshooting sections could be separate files. No bundle files were provided to verify referenced paths exist. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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 | |
- Repository
- 0xrabbidfly/eric-cartman
- Commit
17bd06f
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.