commit

Smart Git commit helper that analyzes changes and creates semantic commits

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.clacky/skills/commit/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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 content is well-structured and actionable with concrete git commands and a clear process, but it is notably verbose through heavy repetition of the single-line rule and restating conventional-commit conventions Claude already knows. It also lacks a validation checkpoint for its batch commit execution and does not use progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

State the single-line-commit constraint once in a prominent section and remove the 5+ repetitions scattered across Process Steps, Commands Used, and Best Practices.

Trim explanations of concepts Claude already knows (the full feat/fix/chore/... type list, imperative-mood and 72-character rules) to a brief reference.

Add a validation checkpoint before executing commits (e.g., display proposed groups and verify staged files match before running git commit) and a post-commit `git log --oneline` verification step.

Move the long worked workflow example and detailed best-practices/anti-pattern lists into a reference file linked from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The single-line-commit constraint is repeated 6+ times across sections and the body re-explains conventional-commit types, imperative mood, and the 72-character rule that Claude already knows, matching the anchor for noticeably verbose content with several padded sections; it is not 1 because the writing is not entirely concept-explanation filler.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable commands (git status, git diff --stat, git add, git commit -m, git log) plus a clear <type>: <description> format and worked message examples, matching the anchor for mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps; it is not 5 because the grouping step is judgment-based rather than a runnable command.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 7-step sequence is clearly ordered with commands, but this is a batch operation that executes commits immediately with no validate-before-commit checkpoint or post-commit verification, so per the rubric's batch-operation cap workflow clarity cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The ~415-line body has clear section headers but is a monolith with no external reference files, and content that could be split out (the long worked example, best-practices detail) is fully inlined, fitting the anchor for some structure with content that should be separate kept inline.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 states what the skill does but omits any explicit "when to use it" guidance, capping completeness and limiting trigger-term coverage. It is reasonably distinct as a git-commit helper but would benefit from concrete trigger phrases.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to commit changes, create semantic/conventional commits, write commit messages, or clean up commit history."

Include natural trigger terms users actually say, such as "commit message", "conventional commits", and the "/commit" command, to raise trigger-term quality.

Tighten specificity by naming a couple more concrete actions (e.g. "groups related changes into purpose-driven commits") instead of the generic "analyzes changes".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the git-commit domain and two concrete actions ("analyzes changes" and "creates semantic commits"), matching the anchor that lists 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; it does not reach 4 because no further specific actions are enumerated.	3 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear "what" (analyzes changes, creates semantic commits) but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ("Git commit", "semantic commits", "changes") but misses common variations users say such as "commit message", "conventional commits", and "/commit", fitting the anchor with some relevant keywords but missing synonyms.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (semantic git commits) with mostly distinct triggers and only minor overlap risk with general git/version-control skills; it stops short of 5 because the triggers are not comprehensive enough to eliminate overlap.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: clacky-ai/openclacky
Path: .clacky/skills/commit/SKILL.md
Commit: db23154

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.