CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

git-pr-workflows-git-workflow

Orchestrate a comprehensive git workflow from code review through PR creation, leveraging specialized agents for quality assurance, testing, and deployment readiness. This workflow implements modern g

53

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/git-pr-workflows-git-workflow/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is git-pr-workflows-git-workflow in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 a well-structured, actionable multi-phase workflow with concrete agent prompts, but it is padded with boilerplate, lacks explicit error-recovery feedback loops for destructive git operations, and fails to progressively disclose content into referenced files.

Suggestions

Add explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops (e.g., 'If pre-push validation reports blocking issues, return to Phase 1/2 and re-run before retrying the push') so the destructive workflow can self-correct.

Remove the '[Extended thinking]' rationale paragraph and the generic 'Use this skill when'/'Instructions' boilerplate; assume Claude's competence and keep only concrete guidance.

Either create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' (and move detailed prompt templates there) or remove the broken reference so progressive disclosure is real rather than dangling.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The phase prompts are concrete, but the '[Extended thinking: ...]' paragraph, the generic 'Use this skill when'/'Do not use this skill when' boilerplate, and the vague top-level 'Instructions' add padding Claude does not need.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready Task invocations with explicit subagent_type values and structured JSON output formats, though the '[insert ...]' placeholders require manual interpolation and some referenced subagent types may not exist.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five phases are clearly sequenced with per-step expected outputs and a pre-push validation phase, but for a destructive/batch operation (commits, pushes, merges) there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, capping clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All content is inlined in SKILL.md with no real bundle files (no references/scripts/assets directories exist), and the sole reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' points to a non-existent file.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 conveys a clear, multi-phase purpose with concrete actions and largely distinct triggers, but it is missing an explicit 'Use when' clause and is cut off mid-sentence, weakening completeness.

Suggestions

Fix the truncated description — it ends abruptly at 'modern g'; complete the sentence or remove the dangling fragment.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause naming the natural phrases users would say (e.g., 'Use when running a full git workflow from review to PR, or when coordinating review/testing/deployment agents').

Include common synonyms such as 'pull request' alongside 'PR creation' to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions — 'code review', 'PR creation', 'quality assurance', 'testing', and 'deployment readiness' — giving comprehensive coverage of the workflow's phases with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('Orchestrate a comprehensive git workflow from code review through PR creation') but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3; the description is also truncated mid-sentence at 'modern g'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say ('git workflow', 'code review', 'PR creation') but misses common synonyms like 'pull request' and lacks file extensions or tool names.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-agent orchestration framing ('leveraging specialized agents for quality assurance, testing, and deployment readiness') carves a mostly distinct niche, with only minor overlap risk against generic code-review skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
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.