git-workflows
Always invoke this skill for any git-related request (commit messages, staging review, history, PR descriptions, etc.) so git workflows are handled consistently.
80
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./git-workflows/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
64%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 functions more as a routing instruction than a skill description — it tells Claude when to use the skill but barely explains what the skill actually does. The trigger terms are good and naturally match user language, but the lack of concrete capability descriptions (e.g., 'generates commit messages', 'analyzes diffs') weakens its utility. The overly broad scope ('any git-related request') also risks conflicts with other skills.
Suggestions
Replace the vague 'handled consistently' with specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates commit messages from diffs, reviews staged changes, summarizes git history, drafts PR descriptions.'
Restructure to separate 'what' from 'when': lead with capabilities, then add a 'Use when...' clause with the trigger terms.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (git) and lists some actions (commit messages, staging review, history, PR descriptions), but these are parenthetical examples rather than clearly stated concrete capabilities. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does with these things. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'when' is clearly stated ('any git-related request'), but the 'what' is weak — it says workflows are 'handled consistently' without explaining what the skill actually does. The description focuses on when to invoke rather than what capabilities it provides. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'git', 'commit messages', 'staging review', 'history', 'PR descriptions'. These cover common variations of git-related requests well. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The git domain is fairly specific, but the extremely broad scope ('any git-related request') could overlap with other skills that handle specific git tasks like code review or CI/CD workflows. The catch-all nature increases conflict risk. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, highly actionable skill that clearly defines five distinct git operations with concrete scripts, explicit workflows, and appropriate progressive disclosure to reference files. Its main weakness is minor verbosity in some sections where descriptions could be tightened without losing clarity. Overall it is a strong skill that effectively guides Claude through complex git workflows with proper validation checkpoints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining basic git concepts, but some sections are verbose—e.g., the commit message generation workflow has lengthy step descriptions, and the 'Generate Commit Message Summary' section explains obvious uses of commit messages. Some tightening is possible. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, executable script commands with specific arguments, clear conventional commit format templates, and step-by-step processes with explicit actions. Each operation has specific scripts to run and clear expected outputs. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with numbered steps, explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Only move on after explicit approval from the user'), precondition checks (verify no staged changes), and feedback loops (user may request revision or approve). The auto-commit workflow includes a precondition gate and approval step before destructive operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill serves as a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to specific files: code review guidelines in `references/`, auto-commit workflow in `references/auto_commit_workflow.md`, and scripts in `scripts/`. Content is appropriately split between the overview and referenced materials, with clear navigation signals like 'Read references/general_code_review_guidelines.md'. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- ceshine/ceshine-agent-skills
- Commit
348c2c1
- 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.