github-issues

Create, search, triage, label, assign, comment on, and close GitHub issues using the gh CLI, with a curl REST fallback.

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Medium

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/dev/github-issues/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced skill with executable gh/curl commands and validation checkpoints, weakened mainly by prose that could tighten and by referenced template bundle files that are missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Tighten the image-attachment prose: replace the multi-line git-plumbing tutorial with a one-line note plus the executable commands, trusting Claude's git knowledge.

Ship the referenced templates/bug-report.md and templates/feature-request.md (currently absent from the bundle) or remove the dangling references so progressive-disclosure links resolve.

Move the elaborate image-attachment procedure into a separate one-level-deep reference file linked from a brief overview, reducing inline bulk.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient real commands, but explanatory prose such as "git commit-tree takes an explicit tree object; the parent it's given is history only and does not contribute its tree ... you have to rebuild a tree" and multi-line bash comments teaching git internals could be tightened. Not 3 because the prose density exceeds the lean, every-token-earns-its-place ideal; not 1 because it does not pad with basic concepts Claude already knows.	2 / 3
Actionability	Quotes fully executable commands throughout, e.g. "gh issue create --title ... --body ... --label bug,webhooks --assignee @me" with matching curl POSTs and real examples (issue #128). Copy-paste ready, not pseudocode. Not 2 because the commands are complete and runnable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequenced workflows with explicit validation checkpoints: Setup re-runs "gh auth status" to verify; the image procedure verifies "curl ... -w '%{http_code}' ... expect 200"; Rules require "Confirm intent before any bulk close/relabel or any single destructive change." Not 2 because validation is present for the destructive/batch operations the rubric flags.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized inline sections and a Quick Reference table, but the file is monolithic (~440 lines) and references bundle files "templates/bug-report.md" and "templates/feature-request.md" that are absent from the bundle — broken references. Not 3 because content is not split and references do not resolve; not 1 because section organization is clear rather than a wall of text.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 specific, action-dense description with good natural trigger terms and a clear niche, but it states only what the skill does and never says when to use it.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to file, view, search, triage, label, or close a GitHub issue," to satisfy the 'when' half of completeness.

Include common user phrasings such as "file an issue", "report a bug", or "open an issue" alongside "create" to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes "Create, search, triage, label, assign, comment on, and close GitHub issues" — seven named concrete actions, matching the score-3 anchor listing multiple specific actions. Not 2 because the action set is comprehensive rather than a single domain mention.	3 / 3
Completeness	Quotes the action list which clearly answers WHAT, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance — the WHEN is absent. Per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 2. Not 3 because there is no explicit when-to-use; not 1 because the what is clearly stated.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Quotes "Create, search, triage, label, assign, comment on, and close GitHub issues" — natural verbs a user would say ("create an issue", "triage issues", "close an issue") plus the trigger noun "GitHub issues". Not 2 because common action verbs are present, though "file/open/report a bug" variants are absent.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Quotes "GitHub issues using the gh CLI, with a curl REST fallback" — a tightly scoped niche unlikely to overlap with PR-review or other-tracker skills. Not 2 because the scope is unambiguously GitHub issues, not a generic document/code skill.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Open-Curiosity/gini-agent
Path: skills/dev/github-issues/SKILL.md
Commit: 6c5d85e

Reviewed: 12 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.