Content
82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced procedural skill with copy-paste-ready commands and clear stop-checkpoints. Its main gaps are an inlined template that duplicates a repo file and the absence of an explicit post-creation verification/retry loop.
Suggestions
Reference .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md instead of inlining the full PR description template to reduce duplication and token cost.
Add an explicit post-creation verification step (e.g., confirm the PR URL resolves and the CI title check passes) with a fix-and-retry loop for a malformed title.
Move the module-mapping table into a reference file so the main flow stays scannable, since it is lookup data rather than procedural guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of git/PR concepts), but it inlines the full PR description template (~30 lines) that duplicates the repo's .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md and could be referenced instead. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash commands throughout (git branch --show-current, git status, gh pr view, gh pr create --body-file, gh pr edit) with explicit coverage of both new-PR and existing-PR cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 4-step process (pre-flight → analyze → draft → push/create) with explicit stop-checkpoints (on main, make quality fails, no commits ahead), but it lacks an explicit post-creation verification or fix-and-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized file with clear section headers (Interaction Principle, Steps 1-4, Common Pitfalls) and no bundle files needed, but at ~170 lines it exceeds the simple-skill under-50-lines threshold so the 5-exception does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |