CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance

You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensu

48

Quality

51%

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/skills/git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

36%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 skill body is brief and well-sectioned but relies heavily on generic, non-actionable instruction boilerplate and a broken reference to a missing playbook, leaving it without concrete executable guidance or a clear sequenced workflow. It needs real examples and a valid referenced resource to become actionable.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract Instructions bullets with concrete, executable steps (e.g., specific git/gh commands for gathering PR context and a worked PR-description template).

Provide a clear multi-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verify diff coverage, confirm description matches changed files) instead of an unordered generic list.

Create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' (or fix the path) so the progressive-disclosure reference resolves to a real file, or remove the reference and inline concise examples.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and mostly efficient, but the generic Instructions bullets ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') and the verbatim repetition of the description add unnecessary padding Claude doesn't need, placing it at the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than the lean 4 or the padded 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is largely abstract high-level hints with no concrete code or commands in the body, and the only concrete pointer ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md') targets a non-existent file, fitting the 'minimal concrete guidance, missing the specific steps' anchor better than the partial-pseudocode 3 or the fully-vague 1.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Only a rough implied sequence exists via generic Instruction bullets, with no explicit ordered workflow and no validation or feedback checkpoints for what is claimed to be a multi-step PR-enhancement process, matching the 'rough sequence, many gaps, validation absent' anchor rather than the enumerated-step 3 or the incoherent 1.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is reasonably sectioned and keeps content short rather than inlining a wall of text, but its single reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' points to a file that does not exist in the bundle, leaving structure present yet navigation only weakly effective, which fits the 3 anchor over the minimal-structure 2.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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 clearly communicates the skill's PR-optimization purpose with several specific actions and decent natural keywords, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps its completeness. It is generally distinct but would benefit from sharper trigger phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause naming concrete scenarios (e.g., 'Use when creating or improving pull requests, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review').

Include natural synonyms and variations like 'merge request', 'diff', or 'commit' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Trim the generic 'best practices' phrasing in favor of more specific capabilities to lift specificity toward a 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('Generate comprehensive PR descriptions', 'automate review processes', 'ensure PRs follow best practices for clarity, size, and reviewability'), so it sits at the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5 or the 1-2-action 3.

4 / 5

Completeness

Provides a clear 'what' but no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit 'when' guidance, and the rubric caps completeness at 3 when trigger guidance is missing; it is above the vague 'what'-only anchor 2 and below the explicit both-answered anchor 4.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('pull requests', 'PR', 'code reviews', 'PR descriptions'), but missing common synonyms/extensions like 'merge request', 'diff', or 'commit' that would warrant a 5, while exceeding the 'some relevant keywords' bar of 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'PR optimization / pull request enhancement' is a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against general code-review/PR-review skills, fitting the 4 anchor better than the broad 3 or the minimal-conflict 5.

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.