git-master

Git expert for atomic commits, rebasing, and history management

Quality

69%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/git-master/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%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 compact, well-sectioned router skill with no token waste on known concepts. Its weaknesses are the contradictory invocation instructions (slash command vs. /prompts route) and purely descriptive capability bullets, which together leave the executor uncertain of the exact action to take.

Suggestions

Resolve the conflicting invocation paths: state one canonical way to trigger the skill (e.g., only "/prompts:git-master with the user task") and remove or clarify the other.

Consolidate the Usage and Routing sections — they repeat the same instruction — into a single section showing the exact command with a concrete example task.

Add one line of routing guidance (what kinds of requests belong here vs. plain git answers) so the router makes a defensible dispatch decision.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the single routing instruction is stated three times — "Routes to the git-master agent for git operations", the Usage block "/git-master <git task>", and the Routing block "Use /prompts:git-master with the user task" — which is minor redundancy that could be trimmed. It is above 3 because there is no padding or unnecessary explanation, but short of 5 since the duplication does not earn its tokens.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete commands are present ("/git-master <git task>", "Use /prompts:git-master with the user task") but the two invocation syntaxes conflict without reconciliation, leaving key details missing — which one actually triggers the agent, and what a well-formed task input looks like. It is not 2 because real commands are given, not just high-level hints, and not 4 because the ambiguity is more than a minor gap.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	This is a simple single-step routing skill, but the single action is ambiguous: the Usage section shows a slash command while the Routing section shows a "/prompts:" route, with no statement of which applies or how they relate. The simple-skill exception (score 5 for an unambiguous single action) therefore does not hold; it is not 2 because a rough sequence (invoke the command with the task) is still discernible.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, has no need for external references, and is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (Usage, Routing, Capabilities). Per the scoring notes for short, single-purpose skills with no external reference needs, this earns a 5.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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.

The description clearly conveys the what — git expertise in atomic commits, rebasing, and history management — with mostly distinct positioning. Its main weaknesses are the missing "when to use" clause and the lack of natural user synonyms (rebase, squash, rewrite history) that would improve trigger matching.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to rebase, squash or rewrite commits, clean up git history, or make atomic/conventional commits."

Include natural synonyms users actually say — "squash commits", "rebase", "rewrite git history", "commit messages" — alongside the current terminology.

Replace the generic "history management" with concrete operations like "history cleanup and rewriting" to sharpen specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several specific actions — "atomic commits, rebasing, and history management" — naming the domain plus concrete operations. It falls short of 5 because "history management" is generic and common tasks like squashing, commit message generation, and merge conflict handling are absent; it is above 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.	4 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clear (git expert for atomic commits, rebasing, history management), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3. It is not 2 because the "what" is concrete, not vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"git", "atomic commits", and "rebasing" are relevant keywords, but the natural phrases users would say — "rebase", "squash commits", "rewrite history", "commit messages" — are missing. It matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than 4, which requires only a few missing terms given this broader gap.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The git history/commit niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against closely related skills (e.g., commit-message generators or general coding assistants). It is not 5 because the absence of explicit trigger phrases leaves some conflict risk with adjacent git workflows.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex
Path: skills/git-master/SKILL.md
Commit: 1dcf513

Reviewed: 4 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.