nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue

Implement an accepted NemoClaw GitHub issue in the current checkout. Use when a user asks to pick up an issue for implementation, implement or fix a named issue, or add the issue's tests. Confirm accepted scope, deliver the smallest independently valuable capability slice, and record validation and remaining gates without publishing a PR. Ask which lifecycle stage they want when "work on this issue" could mean planning or implementation. Do not use for issue planning, PR publication, independent security review, or maintainer loops. Trigger keywords - pick up issue for implementation, implement issue, fix issue, code issue, add issue tests.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

—

The risk profile of this skill

Quality

Content

75%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 workflow with concrete steps, explicit stop conditions, and a ready-to-use report template. It earns high marks on conciseness and clarity; the main gap is an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop for validation failures.

Suggestions

Add an explicit feedback loop after 'Run focused validation': on failure, fix the behavior change and re-run validation before proceeding, mirroring the validate->fix->retry pattern the rubric rewards for workflow_clarity.

Make step 3 ('Make the direct change in the current behavior owner') more concrete by stating how to locate 'the current behavior owner' file, since that phrase is domain jargon a reviewer may not resolve without the shared references.

Tighten the repeated authorization guardrails (e.g. merge the 'does not authorize GitHub writes, a push, or PR publication' line with the earlier 'does not push a branch or create a PR' statement) to reduce token cost without losing the safety signal.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explaining of basic git/GitHub concepts), but a few guardrail restatements (e.g. 'Implementation permits local changes and validation; it does not authorize GitHub writes, a push, or PR publication') could be tightened slightly.	4 / 5
Actionability	It gives a concrete numbered implement-and-validate sequence and a copy-paste-ready report template; as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is appropriate, though a couple of steps ('Make the direct change in the current behavior owner') stay somewhat abstract.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation/stop checkpoints ('Run focused validation after the final behavior change', 'Return without editing when this evidence is missing'), but the validate->fix->retry recovery loop is implied rather than spelled out as a feedback loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers are clear and the shared contracts are linked one level deep with explicit relative paths (e.g. '../_shared/security-rubric.md'); no bundle files ship in references/scripts/assets, so structure rests on these well-signaled external references with minor organization gaps.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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.

An exemplary description: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, explicit trigger keywords, and clear what/when framing with explicit negative scope that distinguishes it from sibling workflows. No vague fluff or over-claims are present.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names concrete actions such as 'Confirm accepted scope, deliver the smallest independently valuable capability slice, and record validation and remaining gates without publishing a PR', giving comprehensive coverage of the workflow's behaviors rather than vague language.	5 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers both 'what' (implement an accepted issue, deliver the smallest valuable slice, record validation) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' guidance with concrete trigger phrases), and adds negative scope.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	An explicit 'Trigger keywords - pick up issue for implementation, implement issue, fix issue, code issue, add issue tests' plus a 'Use when a user asks to...' clause gives comprehensive natural-phrase coverage a user would actually say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'Do not use for issue planning, PR publication, independent security review, or maintainer loops' carve-out plus a named sibling route (nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr) gives it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 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: 6 suspicious	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: NVIDIA/NemoClaw
Path: .agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue/SKILL.md
Commit: e94c06f

Reviewed: 5 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.