CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

understand-diff

Use when you need to analyze git diffs or pull requests to understand what changed, affected components, and risks

68

Quality

83%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong, executable multi-step workflow with copy-paste-ready commands, exact data-structure references, and thorough validation/fallback logic for graph freshness. Weakest only on progressive disclosure, since the inlined graph-schema reference could be split into a bundled file.

Suggestions

Move the 'Graph Structure Reference' block (node/edge/layer/tour schemas) into a bundled references/ file and link to it, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview that points to the schema detail.

Tighten the prose in step 3 by collapsing the repeated explanatory sentences about pathspec and the data-directory exclusion into a single concise note.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely efficient — compact structure tables for nodes/edges and concrete commands assume Claude's competence — with only minor instances of over-explanation in the freshness-check step that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact bash commands with precise flags (e.g., 'git diff --name-only "$GRAPH_COMMIT" HEAD -- .', 'git ls-files --others --exclude-standard'), concrete Grep usage, and exact JSON field names throughout.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 8-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints in step 3 (commit resolution, freshness comparison, project-scoped pathspec) and error-recovery fallbacks ('continue instead of blocking' when the graph commit is missing).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly labeled sections (Graph Structure Reference, How to Read Efficiently, Instructions) with no nested or broken references, but all content is inlined in a ~80-line file and the graph schema reference data could plausibly live in a separate reference file.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A focused, well-constructed description with an explicit 'Use when' trigger, concrete actions, and natural keywords. Its main limitation is a single compound action statement rather than multiple distinct enumerated actions and missing synonyms like 'PRs' or 'code review'.

Suggestions

Enumerate the concrete actions separately (e.g., 'analyze what changed, identify affected components, and assess risks') and add natural synonyms like 'PRs' or 'code review' to broaden trigger coverage.

Consider spelling out additional trigger situations (e.g., 'when the user asks what a PR affects or what to review') to reach the highest completeness anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('git diffs or pull requests') and several concrete actions (analyze what changed, affected components, risks), but actions are stated as one compound goal rather than an enumerated list, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what (analyze diffs/PRs to understand changes, affected components, risks) and when ('Use when you need to analyze git diffs or pull requests') are explicitly present, but the 'when' references a single triggering situation rather than multiple concrete trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms 'git diffs' and 'pull requests' are present and would be said by users, but synonyms like 'PRs' or 'code review' are missing, so it stops short of comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — diff/PR analysis to understand affected components and risks — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

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
Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything
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.