Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a tight, well-organized instruction skill that stays within token budget and avoids over-explanation. Its main gaps are the unstated staging/commit commands and the absence of an explicit verification checkpoint before the commit.
Suggestions
Add the explicit commands for the core actions, e.g. `git add <files>` and `git commit -m "feat: ... [Story X.Y]"`, so the central step is copy-paste ready.
Insert a validation checkpoint before committing, such as re-running `git diff --staged` to confirm only intended files are staged.
Optionally note how to discover the story id when it is not yet known, since step 3 conditions on "when known".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding and no explanation of git concepts Claude already knows; every line (status/diff commands, message templates, forbidden list) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete commands (`git status`, `git diff --staged`) and copy-paste message templates, but the central staging and commit actions are described ("Stage only relevant files", "Commit with conventional message") without showing the actual `git add`/`git commit` commands, leaving a key detail implicit. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps are clearly numbered and step 1 acts as a review checkpoint, but there is no explicit validation gate (e.g., confirm staged diff before committing) for a state-changing operation, which caps it at anchor 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references; the well-organized "Steps" and "Forbidden" sections satisfy the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |