Tessl • The management layer for AI agent skills

SkillPublic

git-advanced-workflows

Master advanced Git techniques to maintain clean history, collaborate effectively, and recover from any situation with confidence.

Quality

51%

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-advanced-workflows/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

52%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.

The body is well-organized and highly executable — the workflows, best practices, and recovery sections give copy-paste-ready commands with sensible destructive-op safeguards. Its two real weaknesses are token efficiency (much of it is a standard-Git tutorial Claude already knows) and progressive disclosure (all six advertised bundle files are missing, with inconsistent path prefixes between `resources/` and `references/`). Trimming known syntax into real reference files and fixing the paths would lift both.

Suggestions

Fix the dangling references: either ship the advertised files (references/git-rebase-guide.md, references/git-conflict-resolution.md, references/git-history-rewriting.md, assets/git-workflow-checklist.md, assets/git-aliases.md, scripts/git-clean-branches.sh) or remove the Resources section; also reconcile the inconsistent `resources/implementation-playbook.md` vs `references/` path prefix.

Move the Core Concepts section — basic rebase/cherry-pick/bisect/worktree syntax Claude already knows — into the reference files, keeping SKILL.md as the curated workflows, pitfalls, and recovery guidance that actually add value.

Embed the verification step inline in destructive workflows (e.g. "run tests, then `git push --force-with-lease`" in Workflow 1) instead of leaving it only as a Best Practices bullet, so validation is a checkpoint in the sequence rather than a footnote.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Large stretches re-teach standard Git that Claude already knows verbatim: the pick/reword/edit/squash/drop semantics, `git bisect start`/`bad`/`good`, `git worktree add`, and basic `git cherry-pick abc123` are all core Git knowledge. The Core Concepts section in particular is a tutorial Claude does not need, matching anchor 2 ("several unnecessary explanations or padded sections").	2 / 5
Actionability	Nearly all guidance is copy-paste-ready bash with per-command comments, and the five workflows cover the common cases concretely. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: placeholder hashes (`abc123`) and comment-only steps like "# Fix conflicts in files" and "# Example rebase operations" that defer actual instructions.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Workflows 1-5 are clearly sequenced, and destructive-operation safeguards exist (backup branch before rebase, `--force-with-lease`, abort commands, "Test Before Force Push"). It does not reach 5 because validation lives in the Best Practices list rather than inline in the workflows — e.g. Workflow 1 force-pushes straight after rebase with no explicit verify step before the destructive push, which is a minor validation gap.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The Resources section points to six files (references/, assets/, scripts/) that do not exist in the bundle, and the Instructions point to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` under a different, inconsistent path prefix. The body also inlines ~400 lines of command syntax that belongs in those reference files. Navigation is broken by dangling paths, matching anchor 2 ("minimal structure; content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined; or references are buried").	2 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

28%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 names the Git domain but stays at the level of generic outcomes, omitting every concrete technique the skill actually covers (rebase, cherry-pick, bisect, worktrees, reflog). It has no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so completeness and trigger-term quality are both weak, and "with confidence" is filler. Rewriting it to list the concrete operations plus explicit trigger situations would fix all four dimensions at once.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause naming the natural phrases users say, e.g. "Use when cleaning up commit history before a PR, cherry-picking commits across branches, bisecting a bug, using worktrees, or recovering lost commits with reflog."

Replace outcome-level generics ("collaborate effectively", "with confidence") with the concrete techniques the skill covers: interactive rebase, cherry-picking, bisect, worktrees, reflog.

State the 'what' as specific actions in third person (e.g. "Rewrites commit history with interactive rebase, applies commits across branches with cherry-pick, binary-searchs bugs with bisect") so it is distinguishable from generic git or commit-message skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("advanced Git techniques") but its actions are generic outcomes — "maintain clean history", "collaborate effectively", "recover from any situation" — without naming any concrete technique (rebase, cherry-pick, bisect, worktree, reflog). It sits between anchors 2 and 3, noticeably below the midpoint because no specific action is stated, and "with confidence" is pure fluff.	2 / 5
Completeness	It offers a moderately vague 'what' ("Master advanced Git techniques...") and no 'when' guidance at all — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger phrase. This matches anchor 2 ("Has a vague 'what' and no 'when'"); it cannot reach 3 without explicit when-guidance, per the cap for missing 'Use when' clauses.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Beyond "Git" itself, phrases like "clean history", "collaborate", and "recover" are generic; the natural terms users actually say (rebase, squash, cherry-pick, bisect, worktree, undo a commit, lost commits) are entirely absent. This matches anchor 2 ("one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say") better than anchor 3.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Advanced Git techniques" scopes a recognizable niche, but the broad claims ("collaborate effectively", "recover from any situation") overlap with general git, commit-message, and git-recovery skills. It matches anchor 3 ("somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills") rather than 4, which would require distinct triggers.	3 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 6 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: skills/git-advanced-workflows/SKILL.md
Revision: 64adc55

Reviewed: 10 hours ago

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.

git-advanced-workflows

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?