github-pr-workflow

Working with GitHub Pull Requests using the gh CLI. Use for fetching PR details, review comments, CI status, and understanding the difference between PR-level comments vs inline code review comments.

1.06x

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

85%

1.06x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

80%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, highly actionable reference skill whose detail is properly offloaded to a real bundled script. The single notable defect is the truncated 'Addressing Review Comments' workflow, which stops after two steps with no verification or completion steps.

Suggestions

Complete the 'Workflow: Addressing Review Comments' section with the missing steps, e.g. respond to or resolve each comment, re-run gh-pr-info to verify no unresolved comments remain, and push the fixes.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint after making fixes (re-run `gh-pr-info <PR>` and confirm it reports nothing unresolved) so the workflow has a feedback loop rather than ending at 'Make fixes in your local branch'.

Trim the 'Key features' bullet list and decorative checkmarks in the command comments to reduce token cost without losing information.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean tables and command blocks with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows (the PR-level vs inline comment distinction is a genuine non-obvious gotcha). Not 5 because the 'Key features' bullet list and repeated checkmark emphasis could be tightened; not 3 because verbosity is minor, not structural.	4 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable, copy-paste-ready gh commands and a real script (scripts/gh-pr-info, verified present) with usage and repo format documented. Not 4 because the commands concretely cover the common cases (view, diff, review, checks, API endpoints) with no gaps.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 'Workflow: Addressing Review Comments' section lists only two steps and ends abruptly at 'Make fixes in your local branch' — there are no steps for responding to comments, pushing, or verifying the fix. Not 4 because the workflow is incomplete rather than merely missing a checkpoint; not 2 because the steps that are listed are concrete and well-defined.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a lean overview and the heavy lifting (GraphQL filtering, comment resolution logic) is correctly offloaded to a script that exists and is clearly signaled via a purpose table with usage. Not 4 because navigation is one level deep with no organization gaps observed.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 strong description with an explicit 'Use for...' trigger clause, concrete natural keywords, and third-person phrasing. Its only weaknesses are minor: capability coverage omits reviewing/approving and diffs, and a few natural synonyms are missing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Working with GitHub Pull Requests using the gh CLI') and several concrete actions ('fetching PR details, review comments, CI status'). Not 5 because coverage has gaps (nothing about reviewing/approving PRs or viewing diffs); not 3 because it lists well more than 1-2 specific actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Working with GitHub Pull Requests using the gh CLI') and when ('Use for fetching PR details, review comments, CI status...') with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific, not merely present or weakly implied.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains natural terms users would say: 'Pull Requests', 'PR', 'review comments', 'CI status', 'gh CLI'. Not 5 because common variations like 'code review', 'approve', or 'diff' are missing; not 3 because keyword coverage is good rather than partial.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear PR/gh-CLI niche with distinct triggers that would not fire for unrelated skills. Not 5 because there is minor overlap risk with generic git-workflow or code-review skills; not 3 because the triggers are much more specific than a broad 'works with documents' style.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: YPares/agent-skills
Path: github-pr-workflow/SKILL.md
Commit: 9a6a183

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.