Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-organized instruction-only skill with a concrete output template and clear rules that assumes Claude's competence throughout. The only meaningful gap is the lack of an explicit validation feedback loop for what is inherently a batch scan.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/reconciliation feedback loop, e.g. cross-check the Scan Summary counts against the emitted item list and re-scan the window if totals disagree.
Optionally include one concrete retrieval example (e.g. a `git log --merges --since=<tag>` invocation) so the input-gathering step is as unambiguous as the output spec.
Keep the current section structure and brevity; both are already strong.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a PR, merge, or conventional commit is; every section (inputs, output template, rules, signals, summary) earns its place with no padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete worked output template, explicit inclusion rules, specific signals to surface, and a summary format; per the instruction-only scoring note, the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is concrete and actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections are well-ordered and the Scan Summary acts as a partial reconciliation checkpoint, but this is a batch operation (many PRs/commits) with no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, which caps workflow clarity at 2 per the batch-operations guideline. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clearly labeled sections (Inputs, Output Format, Additional Signals, Scan Summary) — meeting the simple-skills anchor for a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |