Content
75%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 well-structured, actionable single-file skill: the workflow is clearly sequenced with concrete git/gh commands, a HEREDOC pattern for the PR body, and a user-confirmation checkpoint before the irreversible create step. It falls short of top marks only on small margins — trimmable explanatory asides, a missing command for the push check, and no error-recovery guidance for push/create failures.
Suggestions
Add a concrete command for the push check (e.g., `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref --symbolic-full-name @{u}` or `git ls-remote --heads origin HEAD`) so the 'check if pushed' step is executable rather than a directive.
Add a brief error-recovery step for `gh pr create` and `git push` failures (e.g., retry with `--head`, or surface the gh error and ask the user), which would add the feedback loop needed for a top workflow-clarity score.
Trim advisory asides like 'Read the full diff carefully. You need to understand every change...' and 'the kind of thing a reviewer reads to orient themselves' — the guidance is clear without them.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient — concrete commands, per-section guidance with no concept explanations Claude already knows — but has trimmable padding such as "Read the full diff carefully. You need to understand every change to write an accurate PR description" and "the kind of thing a reviewer reads to orient themselves before looking at code". This matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances of over-explanation) rather than 5, where every token earns its place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, runnable commands (git log/diff, gh pr list, gh pr create with HEREDOC) and specific per-section rules, but "Check if the branch has been pushed to the remote" has no accompanying command, and the HEREDOC body is a skeleton with "..." placeholders. Mostly executable with minor gaps — anchor 4, not 5's copy-paste-ready coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence (gather context → fill template → push check → confirm with user → create → show URL) is clear and includes an explicit user-confirmation checkpoint before the irreversible gh pr create, plus a fallback (ask the user) when no ticket number is found. However there are no error-recovery loops (e.g., if the push or gh pr create fails), which keeps it at anchor 4 rather than 5's feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single SKILL.md is well-organized under clear section headers (Gathering Context, Filling In the Template per section, Creating the PR) with no nested references. At ~110 lines the per-section template guidance is arguably bulk that could live in a reference file, but as a single-task skill with all content one level deep it fits anchor 4 (good structure, appropriately placed, minor organization gaps). | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |