CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

loop-on-ci

Monitor PR checks and fix failures until green. Uses gh pr checks as the source of truth for PR-attached checks.

Quality

86%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%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 body is an exemplary lean skill: concrete executable gh commands, a well-sequenced workflow with an explicit feedback loop, sensible guardrails against bypassing hooks or bloating the PR, and no padding. No bundle files exist, and none are needed at this size.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every section earns its place: the body states the tool choice rationale, a numbered workflow, four ready commands, and terse guardrails with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows (e.g. what CI or gh is), matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

All commands are copy-paste ready and executable — `gh pr view --json number,url,headRefName`, `gh pr checks --json name,bucket,state,workflow,link`, `gh pr checks --watch --fail-fast`, `gh run view <run-id> --log-failed` — and cover the common cases (resolve PR, inspect, watch, read logs), with the one placeholder being a natural parameter and the GHA-only scope of `gh run view` explicitly flagged.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow has a clear sequence and an explicit validation feedback loop — "re-check the full PR check set and repeat until green" plus "re-run gh pr checks after every push; the check set can change" — with error-recovery guidance (diagnose existing failures first, retry flaky once). This matches the explicit-validation-with-feedback-loop anchor; a 4 would require missing checkpoints, which are present.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, needs no external references, and is organized into clearly labeled sections (Trigger, Workflow, Commands, Guardrails, Output), satisfying the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 is concise, specific, and names its tooling, giving it a distinct niche. Its main weakness is the absent 'Use when...' trigger clause and the omission of the most natural keyword ('CI'), which limit discoverability and completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to watch CI, get a PR green, or fix failing PR checks.'

Include the natural synonyms users actually say — 'CI', 'build failures', 'checks are red/failing' — alongside 'PR checks' to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Monitor PR checks and fix failures until green" — and names the exact tool ("Uses gh pr checks as the source of truth for PR-attached checks"), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than the 1-2-action anchor below or the fully comprehensive anchor above.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (monitor PR checks, fix failures, until green), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines; a 4 would require an explicit 'when' however imprecise.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "PR checks", "failures", "fix", and "green" are present, but common synonyms users actually say — "CI", "build", "tests" — are missing, placing it at good-but-incomplete keyword coverage rather than comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The gh pr checks / PR-attached-checks framing carves out a clear niche distinct from generic PR-review or code-fix skills, with only minor overlap risk against closely related CI-fixing skills — not the minimal-conflict clarity of a 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

cursor/plugins

Path

cursor-team-kit/skills/loop-on-ci/SKILL.md

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.