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.
78
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 phrases like 'ready to merge'.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'pull request' (spelled out), '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 clearly defined, actionable steps. | 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', 'pre-merge checks', 'CI checks', or 'ready to merge'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche as a 'pre-PR quality gate' combining multiple checks into a single workflow. 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 with concrete commands, clear phase sequencing, and explicit gate rules. However, it is significantly over-verbose—explaining what each phase catches, repeating OWASP coverage details from the referenced skill, and including troubleshooting/continuous mode sections that inflate the token cost. The content would benefit from aggressive trimming of explanatory text that Claude doesn't need.
Suggestions
Remove all 'What it catches' bullet lists under each phase—Claude already knows what a build check, type check, or lint check catches. This alone would cut ~30% of the content.
Move the Troubleshooting and Continuous Mode sections to a separate reference file (e.g., TROUBLESHOOTING.md) and link to it, keeping SKILL.md focused on the core workflow.
Collapse the OWASP Phase 6 section to just the gate behavior and a reference to the owasp-security-review skill—the long list of what it catches duplicates that skill's content.
Remove the 'When to Use' section entirely; the Purpose section already covers this, and Claude can infer appropriate usage contexts.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~300+ 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 bulk with marginal value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Every phase includes concrete, executable PowerShell commands that are copy-paste ready. The commit format, gate rules, and output format are all specific and actionable. 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 gate rules (blocking vs soft vs info) summarized in a table. Feedback loops exist: build failure stops immediately, OWASP HIGH stops the pipeline, P0 smells block commit. The Phase Gate Rules table is an excellent checkpoint summary, and Phase 10 only runs if prior blocking phases pass. | 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 all 10 phases fully detailed inline. The 'What it catches' lists, troubleshooting section, and continuous mode content could be split into separate reference files. No bundle files are provided to validate references. | 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
a5309ae
- 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.