commit-archaeologist

Reconstructs why code exists from local git history, including the introducing commit, later changes, current authors, repeated companion files, and likely intent. Use when the user asks "why does this code exist", "who wrote this function and why", or to "explain the history of this function" before a rewrite, refactor, or risky edit. Runs entirely locally.

Quality

100%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

100%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 tightly organized read-only workflow skill: executable commands, a JSON output contract, a structured report template, and confidence/evidence guardrails. References are one level deep, clearly signaled, and verified to exist.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean body that assumes Claude's competence — no explanation of git/blame basics — where every section (when to use, gather target, run, read JSON, report, evidence rules) earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready commands (python3 scripts/archaeologist.py ... --json), a concrete JSON field spec, and a numbered report template covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequence (gather target → run dig → read JSON → report → follow-ups) with an explicit error-recovery checkpoint ("If it rejects a path or range, report that error and ask for a corrected target").	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-signaled one-level-deep references — "read references/reading-git-history.md" and a Files section listing scripts/archaeologist.py — both of which exist as real bundle files, with the overview kept inline.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 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.

A model description: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, verbatim natural-language triggers, and an explicit "Use when" clause tied to rewrite/refactor/risky-edit contexts. It is distinct, complete, and concise without fluff.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete capabilities — "introducing commit, later changes, current authors, repeated companion files, and likely intent" — giving comprehensive coverage rather than generic actions.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both "what" (reconstructs why code exists from local git history) and "when" (Use when the user asks...) with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural user phrases quoted verbatim ("why does this code exist", "who wrote this function and why", "explain the history of this function") that a user would genuinely say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche — reconstructing intent from local git history — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps
Path: agent_skills/commit-archaeologist/SKILL.md
Commit: 813a55e

Reviewed: 1 day 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.