weekly-review
Produce a weekly synthesis of authored commits with highlights by bugfix, tech debt, and net-new work
50
53%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./cursor-team-kit/skills/weekly-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
50%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 about what it does—producing a categorized weekly synthesis of commits—and occupies a distinct niche. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for Claude to know when to select this skill. It also misses common user trigger terms like 'weekly report', 'git summary', or 'what did I work on this week'.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause such as 'Use when the user asks for a weekly summary, commit report, or wants to know what they worked on recently.'
Include natural trigger term variations like 'weekly report', 'git log summary', 'commit history', 'what did I do this week', 'standup notes', or 'changelog'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description lists specific concrete actions: 'weekly synthesis of authored commits' with categorized 'highlights by bugfix, tech debt, and net-new work'. These are multiple specific, concrete capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | The description answers 'what does this do' but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'when' is entirely absent (not even implied beyond the weekly cadence), this scores low. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'commits', 'weekly', 'bugfix', 'tech debt', but misses common user variations like 'git log', 'weekly report', 'commit summary', 'changelog', or 'what did I work on'. Users might phrase requests differently than the terms used here. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | This skill occupies a clear niche: weekly commit synthesis categorized by bugfix/tech debt/net-new work. It's unlikely to conflict with other skills due to its specific combination of git commits, weekly cadence, and categorization scheme. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is well-structured and concise, with clear sections and no unnecessary verbosity. However, it critically lacks actionable, executable guidance—there are no git commands (e.g., `git log --author=... --since=...`), no example output format, and no concrete classification criteria. It reads more like a task description than an instructional skill.
Suggestions
Add concrete git commands for each workflow step, e.g., `git log --author="$(git config user.email)" --since='7 days ago' --no-merges --pretty=format:'%h %s'` for step 2.
Provide an example of the expected output format showing the 2-5 bullet summary and classification paragraph so Claude knows exactly what to produce.
Add classification heuristics (e.g., 'commits mentioning fix/bug/patch → bugfix; refactor/cleanup/rename → tech debt; feat/add/implement → net-new') to make the categorization step actionable rather than vague.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is lean and efficient. Every section serves a purpose, there's no explanation of what git is or how commits work, and it respects Claude's intelligence throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides only abstract descriptions of steps ('collect authored commits', 'group meaningful changes') without any concrete git commands, code snippets, or examples of expected output format. There's no executable guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in a logical sequence and there's a guardrail for missing git email, but there are no concrete commands for each step, no validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying the commit range is correct), and no feedback loops for error cases like empty commit histories. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (Trigger, Workflow, Guardrails, Output) that are easy to navigate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- cursor/plugins
- Commit
b8f2564
- 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.