commit
Optionally checks, then commits code to the current or a new feature branch.
68
52%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.30xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/commit/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description conveys the basic purpose of committing code to branches but lacks specificity about what 'checks' entails, omits a 'Use when...' clause entirely, and misses key trigger terms like 'git', 'commit message', or 'staged changes'. It would benefit from more concrete action descriptions and explicit trigger guidance to help Claude select it appropriately from a pool of skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'git commit', 'commit changes', 'create branch', 'push code', 'staged changes'.
Clarify what 'optionally checks' means — e.g., 'Runs linting/tests before committing' or 'Validates staged changes' to make the capability concrete.
Include natural keywords users would say, such as 'git', 'commit message', 'branch', 'version control', and file extensions or tool names if relevant.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (git/version control) and some actions ('checks', 'commits code', 'feature branch'), but doesn't elaborate on what 'checks' means or list comprehensive actions like staging, diffing, or creating PRs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does (checks and commits code) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also somewhat vague ('optionally checks' is unclear), bringing this to a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some natural keywords like 'commits', 'code', and 'feature branch' that users might say, but misses common variations like 'git', 'commit message', 'push', 'branch', 'staged changes', or 'version control'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Mentions committing code and feature branches which narrows the domain to git workflows, but could overlap with other git-related skills (e.g., a branching skill, a code review skill, or a general git skill) due to lack of precise scoping. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise skill that clearly defines a commit workflow with two modes (check/force). Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete examples (e.g., a sample commit message, exact branch naming convention) and missing validation/error-handling steps after the commit or when checks fail. The overall organization and token efficiency are strong.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a well-formed commit message output to improve actionability (e.g., 'feat(auth): add JWT token validation middleware').
Add explicit validation after the commit step (e.g., 'Run `git log -1` to verify the commit was created correctly') and clarify error recovery when the check step fails.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line serves a purpose. No unnecessary explanations of what git is or how conventional commits work conceptually. The skill assumes Claude knows git and focuses on the specific workflow steps and constraints. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific git commands and clear instructions, but lacks executable code examples (e.g., exact git commands with arguments for branch creation, or a concrete commit message example). The guidance is concrete but not fully copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced and the check/force argument provides a branching path, but there's no explicit validation checkpoint after the commit (e.g., verifying the commit succeeded) and no feedback loop for handling failures during the check step beyond 'stop if any checks fail.' | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized with clear sections (Arguments, Steps) and appropriate level of detail inline. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- MetaMask/ocap-kernel
- Commit
052f4d4
- 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.