pr
Creates a pull request for the current branch.
63
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/pr/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 is concise and identifies a clear action (creating a pull request) but lacks a 'Use when...' clause, common trigger term variations (e.g., 'PR', 'merge request'), and additional capability details. It would benefit from explicit trigger guidance and broader keyword coverage to help Claude reliably select this skill from a large pool.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'open a PR', 'submit pull request', 'create PR', 'push and open PR for review'.
Include common synonyms and abbreviations such as 'PR', 'merge request', 'code review submission' to improve trigger term coverage.
List additional specific capabilities if applicable, such as setting PR title/body, adding reviewers, or setting draft status.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names a specific action ('creates a pull request') and a context ('current branch'), but only describes a single action without listing additional related capabilities like updating PRs, adding reviewers, or setting labels. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'when' is entirely absent, this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'pull request' and 'branch' which are natural terms users would say, but misses common variations like 'PR', 'open a PR', 'submit for review', or 'merge request'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Fairly specific to pull request creation which narrows the domain, but could overlap with broader Git/GitHub workflow skills or code review skills without clearer trigger boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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, highly actionable skill with clear phased workflows, explicit validation checkpoints, and concrete CLI commands. Its main weakness is verbosity — the subagent review section is lengthy and includes guidance Claude already knows (common bug patterns, OWASP categories), and the file classification triage could be more compact. The content would benefit from splitting the review subagent details into a referenced file.
Suggestions
Extract the subagent review details (Subagents 1-4 prompt descriptions) into a separate REVIEW_AGENTS.md file and reference it from the main skill, reducing the monolithic length.
Convert the file classification triage into a compact table rather than a numbered list with inline explanations to save tokens.
Remove generic review guidance Claude already knows (e.g., 'OWASP top-10 vulnerabilities', 'off-by-one mistakes', 'race conditions') and focus only on project-specific review criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly detailed and well-structured, but some sections are verbose — particularly the subagent prompts which describe what to check in general terms Claude already knows (OWASP top-10, off-by-one mistakes, race conditions). The file classification triage is thorough but could be more compact as a table. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides specific, executable commands throughout (git status, git merge-base, git log, git diff, gh pr create, gh pr edit). Each phase has concrete steps with exact CLI invocations and clear conditional logic for different scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (Phase 1 pre-flight checks stop on errors, Phase 3 blocker classification with fix/proceed/abort options, Phase 5 conditional changelog updates). The stacked PR detection includes a clear decision tree, and the review phase has an explicit feedback loop for blockers. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a long monolithic document (~150 lines) that could benefit from splitting subagent review details into a separate file. It does reference one external file (docs/contributing/updating-changelogs.md) appropriately, but the inline subagent prompt descriptions and file classification triage add significant bulk that could be externalized. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- MetaMask/ocap-kernel
- Commit
d93dc41
- 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.