CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

github-workflow-automation

Patterns for automating GitHub workflows with AI assistance, inspired by [Gemini CLI](https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli) and modern DevOps practices.

24

Quality

16%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/github-workflow-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

21%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is a massive collection of GitHub Actions workflow templates that would be better served as a catalog of separate files with a concise overview. It is severely over-length, explains many patterns Claude already knows how to produce, contains several incomplete/pseudocode implementations (undefined functions like `callAI`, `analyzeIssue`), and lacks validation checkpoints for destructive operations like force-push rebasing and branch deletion.

Suggestions

Reduce the SKILL.md to a concise overview (under 80 lines) listing each automation pattern with a 1-2 sentence description, and move each complete workflow YAML into its own bundle file (e.g., `workflows/ai-review.yml`, `workflows/issue-triage.yml`).

Remove content Claude already knows how to generate: CODEOWNERS syntax, branch protection API calls, stale issue management with actions/stale, and generic best practices checklists.

Replace undefined function references (`callAI()`, `analyzeIssue()`, `ai.analyze()`) with actual executable implementations or remove them entirely.

Add explicit validation/verification steps for destructive operations: the auto-rebase workflow should verify the rebase succeeded before force-pushing, and the branch cleanup should include a dry-run or confirmation step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

This is extremely verbose at 500+ lines, containing massive YAML blocks, multiple complete workflow files, and extensive boilerplate that Claude already knows how to produce. The 'When to Use This Skill' section, review comment templates, CODEOWNERS examples, and branch protection setup are all things Claude can generate without instruction. Very little here is novel knowledge that earns its token cost.

1 / 5

Actionability

The YAML workflows and code snippets are mostly concrete and copy-pasteable, but several critical pieces are incomplete or pseudocode-like: `callAI(prompt)` is undefined, `analyzeIssue()` is referenced but never implemented, `ai.analyze()` and `ai.chat()` are undefined abstractions. The smart cherry-pick TypeScript is illustrative rather than executable.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

While individual workflow files have implicit sequencing via GitHub Actions job ordering, there is no overarching guidance on how to adopt these patterns, no validation checkpoints for verifying workflows work correctly, and no error recovery guidance. The deployment workflow has an AI risk assessment but the `callAI` function is undefined, making the validation step non-functional. Destructive operations like force-push rebasing and branch cleanup lack verification steps.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a monolithic wall of content with no bundle files to offload detail into. All 500+ lines are inlined in a single file with no references to supporting documents. The individual workflow files (ai-review.yml, issue-triage.yml, etc.) should clearly be separate files referenced from a concise overview, but instead everything is dumped inline.

1 / 5

Total

7

/

20

Passed

Description

11%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.

This description is extremely vague and provides almost no actionable information for skill selection. It reads more like a tagline or subtitle than a functional description—listing no concrete capabilities, no trigger conditions, and no distinguishing details. The reference to Gemini CLI is irrelevant to skill selection and adds no value.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract 'patterns for automating' language with specific actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Creates pull requests, manages GitHub issues, configures GitHub Actions workflows, automates code reviews.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about GitHub automation, pull requests, CI/CD pipelines, GitHub Actions, or repository management.'

Remove the inspirational attribution ('inspired by Gemini CLI and modern DevOps practices') as it provides no selection value, and replace it with concrete scope boundaries that distinguish this skill from general git or DevOps skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description mentions no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Patterns for automating GitHub workflows' is entirely abstract—it doesn't specify what actions the skill performs (e.g., creating PRs, managing issues, running CI pipelines). The reference to Gemini CLI and 'modern DevOps practices' is vague filler.

1 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is extremely vague ('patterns for automating GitHub workflows') and there is no 'when' clause at all. There is no guidance for Claude on when to select this skill. This fails both halves of the completeness test.

1 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'GitHub workflows' and 'DevOps' are somewhat relevant keywords, but they are broad and generic. Natural user phrases like 'pull request', 'CI/CD', 'GitHub Actions', 'merge', 'issue', or 'pipeline' are entirely absent.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'GitHub workflows' and 'DevOps' are very broad terms that could overlap with many skills related to CI/CD, GitHub Actions, git operations, or general automation. The description provides no specific niche to distinguish it.

2 / 5

Total

6

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (850 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

9

/

11

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.