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

47

Quality

50%

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-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

40%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-structured with clear use/don't-use and output-format sections, but its instructions are generic boilerplate with no executable guidance or concrete examples, and it points to a resources file that is absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Replace generic instructions with concrete, executable steps (e.g., specific commands or a PR-description template with worked examples) to raise actionability.

Add explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verify description against the diff, confirm test coverage delta) to give the workflow a real feedback loop.

Either provide resources/implementation-playbook.md or remove the broken reference so progressive disclosure is fully sound.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is relatively short and sectioned, but it repeats the frontmatter description verbatim in the intro and includes generic boilerplate ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.') that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is high-level and abstract ('Apply relevant best practices', 'Provide actionable steps and verification') with no concrete code, commands, templates, or worked examples; the only concrete pointer is to a missing file.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence is implied (clarify goals -> apply practices -> validate), but steps are poorly defined and validation is mentioned only abstractly with no concrete checkpoints or feedback loops.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into clear sections with a single one-level-deep reference ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') signaled in both Instructions and Resources, but the referenced file does not exist, a minor organization gap.

4 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 purpose and reasonable trigger keywords for PR enhancement, but it uses second-person voice and omits an explicit 'Use when' clause, capping specificity and completeness. It is also truncated mid-word ('ensu'), which slightly undermines clarity.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person ('Optimizes pull requests...') to avoid the specificity penalty and drop the 'You are' framing.

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

Fix the truncated tail ('and ensu') so the description is a complete, well-formed sentence.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the PR-review domain and several concrete actions ('creating high-quality pull requests', 'Generate comprehensive PR descriptions', 'automate review processes'), which maps to a 4, but the second-person voice ('You are a PR optimization expert') triggers the -1 specificity penalty per the rubric.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (PR optimization, description generation, review automation) but no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger clause, so completeness is capped at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would say ('pull requests', 'PR descriptions', 'code reviews', 'review processes'), giving good keyword coverage, though synonyms like 'code review', 'PR template', or 'diff' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (PR enhancement) with distinct triggers, but 'code reviews' creates minor overlap risk with general code-review skills, so it is mostly distinct rather than fully so.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.