Content
78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, command-oriented skill body with genuinely useful safety rules and correctly organized reference files. Its weaknesses are repetition of the branching rules across sections, underspecified gh CLI invocations for PR/release creation, and vague verification steps where concrete commands would be clearer.
Suggestions
State the two-branch rule once (e.g., in Reglas de Seguridad) and reference it from '/git branch' and Contexto del Proyecto instead of repeating it three times.
Provide concrete invocations for 'gh pr create --title ... --body ...' and 'gh release create v<version> --title ... --notes-file ...' instead of naming the commands without arguments.
Replace vague verification ('verificar que el código compila/arranca', 'tests pasan si existen') with the project's actual build/test command so the checkpoint is executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body assumes Claude's git competence (no concept explanations) and stays lean, but the two-branch rule is stated three times (Contexto del Proyecto, the '/git branch' REGLA, and Reglas de Seguridad) and memory-update guidance appears in two sections. Fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place level 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Most steps are copy-paste commands ('git checkout -b development main', 'git log main..HEAD --oneline', 'git rebase --continue'), but 'gh pr create' and 'gh release create' are named without flags or arguments, and the PR body is only abstractly described ('Summary + Business Impact + Test Plan') with a pointer to a template. Minor gaps keep it at 4 rather than fully copy-paste-ready 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Destructive workflows (rebase, --force-with-lease push, production merge) do include verification checkpoints ('Verificar que el código compila/arranca', 'SIEMPRE verificar que los tests pasan antes de un release'), so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. However, validation is hedged ('si existen') and 'compila/arranca' lacks a concrete verification command, fitting 'most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than 5's explicit feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear command-by-command overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references: both 'references/git-strategy.md' and 'references/changelog-templates.md' exist, are cited at the point of need with a description of their contents ('Ver formato extendido en...'), and are summarized in a final Referencias section. Matches the score-5 anchor of appropriately split content with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |