CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

gh-close-issues

Close resolved Codewhale issues only after verifying the landed commit/behavior, with a positive crediting comment; never from title alone.

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

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.

An exemplary instruction-only skill body: concrete, executable commands at every step, a validation-gated workflow with explicit do-not-close feedback loops, and lean prose. The only minor weakness is a dangling file reference and slight length that could be trimmed or split.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section carries repo-specific rules or commands. Minor tightening is possible (crediting rules repeat between steps 4-6 and "Red flags"), so it fits anchor 4 (efficient, minor trims) rather than 5 (every token earns its place).

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable `gh` and `git` commands appear at every step — `gh issue view ... --json ...`, `git log --grep`, `git merge-tree`, and a complete copy-paste-ready close command with a full example comment. The guidance covers the common cases (verified close, partial fix, wontfix/duplicate), matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("No citation → not verified → do not close", `git branch --contains`, the merge-tree release-branch check) and an error-recovery path (partial fix → status comment and keep open). This matches anchor 5 (explicit validation, feedback loops); the destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply because verification is the core of the skill.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections (When to use, Workflow, Partial fix, Red flags) are well organized and all content appropriately lives in the single body. However, the body runs ~95 lines and mentions "(see `auto-close-harvested.yml`)" without a real referenced path or bundle file, so it fits anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 sharply focused, third-person description with concrete actions and strong distinctiveness, weakened by the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3. Keyword coverage is good but could include more natural synonyms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when an issue appears fixed by a landed commit or when closing issues after a merged PR or milestone sweep."

Include more natural trigger variations such as "GitHub issue", "bug report", and "triage" so users' phrasing matches naturally.

Optionally mention the partial-fix and duplicate-handling outcomes (status note instead of close) to round out coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Close resolved Codewhale issues", "verifying the landed commit/behavior", and "with a positive crediting comment" name several concrete actions plus a guardrail ("never from title alone"), but coverage is not comprehensive — reopen, duplicate, and partial-fix handling are absent. Anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) fits better than 3 (only 1-2 actions) or 5 (comprehensive).

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (close verified issues with a crediting comment), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — "never from title alone" is a when-not constraint, not a when. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3, which also matches anchor 3 (clear what, when missing or weakly implied).

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger words like "close", "resolved", "issues", "commit", and "comment" are present and would be said by a user needing this skill, but common variations such as "GitHub", "bug", or "triage" are missing. This matches anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5 (comprehensive including synonyms).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche — verification-gated closing of issues with crediting, tied to a specific repo and an explicit "never from title alone" boundary — making conflict with other skills minimal. It clearly matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers) rather than 4 (minor overlap with closely related skills).

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

Hmbown/Codewhale

Path

docs/skills/gh-close-issues/SKILL.md

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.