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.
90
89%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
85%
1.06xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that clearly identifies the domain (GitHub PRs via gh CLI), lists specific capabilities, and provides explicit trigger guidance. The distinction between PR-level comments and inline code review comments adds valuable specificity that aids in skill selection. Minor improvement could include mentioning file extensions or additional trigger terms like 'pull request review' or 'PR checks'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: fetching PR details, review comments, CI status, and distinguishing between PR-level comments vs inline code review comments. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('fetching PR details, review comments, CI status, understanding comment types') and when ('Use for fetching PR details, review comments, CI status') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'GitHub', 'Pull Requests', 'PR', 'gh CLI', 'review comments', 'CI status', 'code review'. These cover common variations of how users refer to PR workflows. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to GitHub Pull Requests via the gh CLI, with specific mention of PR-level vs inline code review comments. This is a distinct niche unlikely to conflict with general git, code review, or other GitHub skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
79%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted, concise skill that effectively communicates the critical distinction between PR comment types and provides actionable CLI commands and API references. Its main weaknesses are the truncated workflow section at the end and the reference to a `gh-pr-info` script without supporting bundle files to back it up. The content is otherwise efficient and practical.
Suggestions
Complete the truncated 'Workflow: Addressing Review Comments' section with all steps including validation (e.g., re-running gh-pr-info after fixes, confirming CI passes before requesting re-review).
Include the `gh-pr-info` script in the bundle or provide a reference to where it lives, since it's the primary recommended tool.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. It doesn't explain what GitHub PRs are or how git works. The critical distinction between PR-level and inline comments is genuinely non-obvious and earns its place. Every section provides actionable reference material without padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands throughout — real gh CLI commands, API endpoint patterns, and a custom script with clear usage syntax. The commands are copy-paste ready with placeholder conventions that are immediately understandable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Workflow: Addressing Review Comments' section at the end is truncated after only 2 steps, leaving the workflow incomplete. While the commands and script table are well-organized, the multi-step review-addressing workflow lacks validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying fixes resolve the comments, confirming CI passes after changes). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and a useful table, but the script `gh-pr-info` is referenced without any bundle files provided. There are no references to supporting files for advanced usage. The content is appropriately sized for a single file but the missing bundle context and truncated workflow suggest incomplete organization. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- YPares/agent-skills
- Commit
84b1da5
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.