review-and-ship

Review the current branch for bugs, intent fit, and test coverage; run or write tests; commit focused work; open or update a PR.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is concise, well-structured, and has a clear sequenced workflow with validation feedback loops. Its main weakness is actionability: the commit/push/PR steps lack concrete commands despite the strong Suggested Checks block.

Suggestions

Add concrete commit/push/PR commands (e.g. `git commit -m "..."`, `git push -u origin HEAD`, `gh pr create`/`gh pr edit`) to steps 5–6 to make the "ship" half fully executable.

Optionally show the concise commit-message format expected in step 5 to remove ambiguity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no padding or explanations of git/PR concepts — with every section (Trigger, Workflow, Suggested Checks, Guardrails, Output) earning its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	Suggested Checks provides copy-paste-ready executable commands, but the "ship" half ("Commit selective files", "Push branch and open or update a PR") gives direction without concrete commands, leaving guidance incomplete.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear six-step sequence with explicit feedback loops — step 4 fixes critical issues and re-runs affected tests, and the guardrails require fixing rather than bypassing failed pre-commit checks.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no need for external references, it is well-organized into clearly labeled sections, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top progressive-disclosure score.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

82%

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 rich in natural trigger terms, but it omits an explicit "Use when…" clause, which caps its completeness score. Distinctiveness and specificity are strong.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing changes before shipping a branch or opening/updating a PR." to lift completeness to 3.

Spell out "pull request" alongside "PR" and add common phrasings like "check my branch" or "ship my changes" to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "Review the current branch for bugs, intent fit, and test coverage", "run or write tests", "commit focused work", "open or update a PR" — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does but lacks an explicit "Use when…" trigger clause, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2 rather than reaching the both-what-and-when anchor.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Uses natural terms a developer would say when needing this skill ("review", "bugs", "test coverage", "commit", "PR"), giving good coverage of likely user phrasing.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The review-tests-commit-PR action set defines a clear niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills; it is not generic enough to conflict broadly.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 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.