pull-request

Draft and review Epicenter pull request titles and bodies, including changelog and merge details. Use when creating a PR or editing its text, not for local commits, branches, or issue replies.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

78%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 instruction-only skill: hard rules are concrete, references are well-signaled and genuinely one level deep, and nothing pads the token budget. The main room for improvement is making the drafting workflow explicit and tightening the abstract prose in the principle sections.

Suggestions

Lay out the drafting sequence as explicit ordered steps (read diff and callers, draft, re-read as the target reader, rewrite on scope change) instead of distributing it across prose sections.

Tighten abstract sentences in "Explain the change" and "Ground the explanation" (e.g., "Build a readable rhythm of explanation and concrete things") into short imperative directives.

Add one inline worked mini-example of a title and body opening so the title/body conventions are executable without loading references/examples.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body never explains concepts Claude already knows and every rule is project-specific convention, but a few lyrical sentences ("Build a readable rhythm of explanation and concrete things the reader can inspect") could be trimmed to crisper directives — anchor 4, not 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The Hard Rules are concrete and executable (forbidden section names, conventional-commit title format, changelog gated on feat:/fix:), while the principle sections stay directive but abstract, deferring concrete patterns to references — mostly actionable with minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear drafting sequence is present (read the final diff and affected callers before drafting, draft, re-read as the target reader, rewrite when scope changes) with a self-review checkpoint, but it is scattered across prose rather than laid out as an explicit sequence with named checkpoints.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The ~45-line overview splits cleanly into on-demand references: "Load these on demand" lists five labeled files, all of which exist in references/ and are one level deep with only peer-level cross-references — a direct match for anchor 5.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 description: it states concrete capabilities, gives an explicit 'Use when' clause with both positive and negative triggers, and is well-scoped to Epicenter PRs. Only minor synonym coverage keeps trigger quality and specificity at 4.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Draft and review Epicenter pull request titles and bodies, including changelog and merge details" lists several concrete actions (draft, review, changelog, merge details) with only minor coverage gaps, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive anchor 5 or the 1-2-action anchor 3.	4 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers both what ("Draft and review Epicenter pull request titles and bodies, including changelog and merge details") and when ("Use when creating a PR or editing its text") with concrete trigger phrases, and adds negative triggers for adjacent tasks — a direct match for anchor 5.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger phrases like "creating a PR", "pull request", and "changelog" are present, but a few natural synonyms users would say (e.g., "PR description", "release notes") are missing, fitting the good-but-not-comprehensive anchor 4.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The Epicenter scope plus explicit exclusions ("not for local commits, branches, or issue replies") carve a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with git-commit or issue-reply skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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: f9441c8

Reviewed: 3 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.