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

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

100%

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: executable commands, a clear feedback-driven workflow with checkpoints, and well-organized sections that need no external references. Nothing material is missing or padded.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and efficient throughout — every section earns its place, and the gh pr checks vs gh run list distinction is non-obvious knowledge rather than padding, assuming Claude's competence.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands (gh pr view --json, gh pr checks --json, gh pr checks --watch --fail-fast, gh run view --log-failed) with only necessary placeholders.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced five-step workflow with explicit checkpoints (diagnose failures before waiting) and a feedback loop (re-check and repeat until green, retry once on flakes).	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no external references needed, organized into clear, well-signaled sections (Trigger, Workflow, Commands, Guardrails, Output) — satisfying the simple-skills allowance for a score of 3.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 specific and well-scoped to a distinct niche, with concrete actions and a named tool. Its main weakness is the absent explicit trigger guidance and the omission of "CI", the term users most naturally say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when…" clause naming the trigger, e.g. 'Use when a PR's checks are failing or pending and need to be driven to green.'

Include "CI" alongside "PR checks" to capture the most common user phrasing ("CI is failing", "fix the CI").

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names multiple concrete actions — "Monitor PR checks", "fix failures until green", and specifies the tool "gh pr checks" — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does, but has no "Use when…" clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; per the judging guidelines a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms like "PR checks", "failures", and "green", but omits "CI" — the most common phrasing users actually use (and one the body relies on) — so coverage of common variations is incomplete.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche — iterating on PR-attached CI checks via a specific gh subcommand — with distinct triggers unlikely to be confused with other skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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: cursor/plugins
Commit: 0452e08

Reviewed: 14 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.