CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

git-pr

创建包含正确远程处理的 Pull Request

60

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.cursor/skills/git-pr/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

87%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is an exceptionally lean, executable git/PR workflow with clear placeholders and well-organized sections. Its only gap is the absence of explicit validation/verification checkpoints after the push and PR-creation steps, which keeps workflow clarity at anchor 2.

Suggestions

Add a validation checkpoint after pushing, e.g. run `git remote -v` again or confirm the upstream branch is set before opening the PR.

Add a verification step after `gh pr create`, e.g. check the returned PR URL or run `gh pr view` to confirm the PR was created against the correct base.

Note what to do if the pre-flight remote check fails (retry the set-url command or abort) to close the error-recovery loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean set of commands and brief notes with no conceptual padding or explanation of git basics Claude already knows, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable bash commands with clearly delimited placeholders (<github-username>, <branch-name>, <type>), copy-paste ready, matching the 'fully executable code/commands; copy-paste ready' anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (pre-flight → branch → commit → push → PR) is clearly listed, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint after risky steps like push or PR creation (e.g. verifying the PR opened or the remote is correct), which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and its content is well-organized into clear sections (飞行前检查, 命令, 注意事项), so per the simple_skills note progressive disclosure scores 3.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description conveys a clear single-purpose action but stops at anchor-2 quality: it names the domain without enumerating multiple concrete actions and omits any explicit 'use when' trigger guidance. Adding trigger terms and a use-when clause would raise specificity, completeness, and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with natural triggers, e.g. 'Use when creating a PR, opening a pull request, or pushing a branch to origin'.

List multiple concrete actions to reach anchor 3 specificity, e.g. 'Verify the origin remote, create a feature branch, push with -u, and open a PR against main'.

Include common trigger variations (PR, pull request, 开 PR) to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a concrete domain and action ("创建...Pull Request", "正确远程处理") but lists only one task rather than multiple specific concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions' anchor rather than the multi-action anchor at 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does (create a PR with correct remote handling) but has no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric guidelines caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The term "Pull Request" is a natural keyword a user would say, but common variations (PR, 开 PR, 拉请求) are missing, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (PR creation with remote handling) is fairly specific and unlikely to broadly conflict, yet without explicit triggers it could still overlap with general git/PR skills, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
4thfever/cultivation-world-simulator
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.