Content
82%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 strong, execution-ready skill: concrete commands throughout, a clear step sequence with verification checkpoints, and disciplined scope (draft-only, no Discussion creation). The main improvement opportunities are deduplicating the Hard Rules against in-body rules and adding explicit failure-recovery guidance for tag/PR verification steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with task-specific guidance and explains nothing Claude already knows; the gh/git commands carry real weight. It loses a point to redundancy — the Hard Rules section restates several in-body rules nearly verbatim ("Never thank internal contributors by default", "Never mention contributor affiliation", "Never create or update a GitHub Discussion"), and the changelog-entry caveat appears twice in Prerequisites. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The skill provides copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags and jq filters: the `git ls-remote` tag check, the `gh api repos/.../compare` invocation with a full `--jq` projection, `gh pr view` with a specific `--json` field list, and a runnable membership-check loop with 204/404 interpretation. A concrete example bullet and thank-you block show the expected output format. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-7 are clearly sequenced with verification checkpoints (confirm `<current-version>^{}` peels to the intended commit, verify the changelog entry against live compare data, interpret membership codes 204/404). It stops short of a 5 because there are no explicit error-recovery loops — e.g. what to do when the tag doesn't peel to the expected commit, a PR lacks metadata, or the previous-version tag is missing — only a routing note in Hard Rules. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized into numbered steps, prerequisites, output, and hard rules, with the one external reference ("[Documentation Writing and Review](../_shared/documentation-writing-review.md)") clearly signaled and one level deep. No bundle files exist to offload content into, and the content is appropriately self-contained. The minor gap keeping it from 5 is that the shared-contract path is repo-relative rather than resolvable from the skill directory, and the worked example block in Step 5 is borderline reference material inlined in the main flow. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |