pull-request

Draft and review durable GitHub pull request titles and bodies for Epicenter. Use when creating a PR, running gh pr create, drafting or editing a PR body, writing changelog entries, linking issues, choosing merge strategy, or reviewing PR text. For local commits and branches use the git skill; for issue replies use github-issues. Never include Testing, Test Plan, or Verification sections in PR bodies unless explicitly requested.

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

86%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 well-structured, lean skill body that routes, decides, and defers detail to five real one-level reference files. The main gap is that the drafting workflow is implicit rather than numbered and lacks an explicit verification checkpoint before posting the PR.

Suggestions

Add a short numbered workflow (route → pick shape → draft → apply Hard Rules → add Changelog if feat/fix) so the sequence is explicit rather than implied across sections.

Include an explicit verification step before posting (e.g., re-read the body for banned sections and confirm examples are present for public-surface changes) to close the workflow checkpoint gap.

Inline one minimal focused-fix body skeleton so the most common shape is copy-paste ready without first opening references/body-patterns.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and opinionated with no concept-explanation padding — 'A PR body is a durable explanation of the change, not a reviewer-only checklist' is substantive guidance, and the Hard Rules are terse directives; every line earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	A concrete decision table maps change types to body shapes with one-line summaries, and the Hard Rules are specific directives ('Do not include ## Summary...', 'PR titles use the same conventional commit format'), but the actual templates and openers are deferred to references, leaving minor gaps within the body itself.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear implicit sequence — route to git/github-issues if needed, pick a body shape, open its reference section, apply Hard Rules, add Changelog for feat/fix — but it is not presented as numbered steps and has no explicit verify checkpoint.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a clean overview pointing to five well-annotated, one-level-deep reference files ('Body shapes...', 'Diagram catalog...', 'A full worked body...', 'Changelog entries...', 'Issue linking...'), all of which exist in references/, matching the ideal navigable structure.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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 strong, specific description that clearly states the skill's purpose, enumerates natural trigger phrases, and explicitly disambiguates from adjacent git and issue skills. It reads as a model trigger-rich description with no padding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions across the PR lifecycle — 'Draft and review... titles and bodies', 'running gh pr create', 'drafting or editing a PR body', 'writing changelog entries', 'linking issues', 'choosing merge strategy', 'reviewing PR text' — giving comprehensive coverage rather than just the domain.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Draft and review durable GitHub pull request titles and bodies for Epicenter') and when ('Use when creating a PR, running gh pr create...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural user phrasings plus synonyms and the concrete command — 'creating a PR', 'gh pr create', 'drafting or editing a PR body', 'reviewing PR text', 'writing changelog entries', 'linking issues', 'choosing merge strategy'.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche (PR titles and bodies) with explicit boundaries — 'For local commits and branches use the git skill; for issue replies use github-issues' — minimizing overlap with sibling skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
relative_links	Relative link issues: 3 suspicious	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: EpicenterHQ/epicenter
Path: .agents/skills/pull-request/SKILL.md
Commit: abe10f3

Reviewed: 5 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.