create-pr
Create a pull request for the current branch with proper labels and description
62
55%
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 ./.claude/skills/create-pr/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 communicates the core action (creating a pull request) but lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), misses common user-facing synonyms like 'PR' or 'GitHub', and doesn't enumerate the full range of capabilities. It would benefit significantly from a 'Use when...' clause and broader keyword coverage to help Claude select it reliably.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to open a PR, create a pull request, submit code for review, or push changes for merging.'
Include common trigger term variations such as 'PR', 'merge request', 'GitHub', 'open a PR', and 'code review' to improve matching.
Expand the capability list to mention related actions like setting reviewers, linking issues, or drafting PR descriptions from commit history.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (pull requests) and some actions (create with labels and description), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond creation — e.g., no mention of updating PRs, adding reviewers, linking issues, or other PR-related tasks. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (create a pull request with labels and description) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2 — and the 'when' is entirely missing, not just implied, bringing it to 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'pull request', 'branch', 'labels', and 'description' which are relevant keywords, but misses common variations like 'PR', 'merge request', 'open a PR', 'GitHub', or 'code review' that users would naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Fairly specific to pull request creation which narrows the domain, but could overlap with general Git workflow skills, GitHub automation skills, or broader CI/CD skills without clearer scoping. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, actionable skill with a well-sequenced workflow covering edge cases (main branch detection, codex availability, draft vs real PRs). The main weakness is some redundancy between the step-by-step PR body instructions and the separate 'PR Description Guidelines' section, which inflates token usage without adding new information. Overall it's a high-quality skill that would guide Claude effectively through the PR creation process.
Suggestions
Remove or consolidate the 'PR Description Guidelines (from CONTRIBUTING.md)' section since it largely duplicates the guidance already in step 10's PR body instructions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some redundancy — the 'PR Description Guidelines' section largely repeats what's already covered in step 10's PR body instructions. The CONTRIBUTING.md excerpt could be omitted since the template sections already encode those guidelines. Otherwise, the content is reasonably tight. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, executable commands throughout: specific git commands, gh CLI invocations with exact flags, a complete bash example with proper flag usage, and clear conditional logic (e.g., --real flag handling, codex check). The example is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 10-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit decision points (branch check, codex availability, draft vs real), validation steps (check uncommitted changes, check if codex is installed), and conditional branching. The flow from checking the branch through pushing and creating the PR is unambiguous with proper error handling (stop if nothing to PR). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections, but it's somewhat monolithic for its length. The PR Description Guidelines section is redundant with step 10 and could be removed or consolidated. No bundle files are referenced, which is fine for a standalone skill, but the inline repetition slightly hurts organization. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- DataDog/datadog-agent
- Commit
0f36ad4
- 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.