github-contributor
Strategic guide for becoming an effective GitHub contributor. Covers opportunity discovery, project selection, high-quality PR creation, and reputation building. Use when looking to contribute to open-source projects, building GitHub presence, or learning contribution best practices.
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
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.
This is a solid description that clearly communicates both purpose and usage triggers. The main weakness is that the capabilities listed are somewhat abstract categories rather than concrete actions, and there's potential overlap with related Git/code review skills. The explicit 'Use when...' clause with multiple trigger scenarios is a strength.
Suggestions
Replace abstract categories with more concrete actions (e.g., 'find good-first-issues, evaluate project health, write PR descriptions, respond to maintainer feedback')
Add distinguishing terms to reduce conflict risk with related skills (e.g., 'first-time contributor', 'maintainer communication', 'issue triage')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (GitHub contribution) and lists some actions like 'opportunity discovery, project selection, high-quality PR creation, and reputation building', but these are somewhat abstract categories rather than concrete specific actions like 'fork repositories, write commit messages, submit pull requests'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Strategic guide for becoming an effective GitHub contributor. Covers opportunity discovery, project selection, high-quality PR creation, and reputation building') and when ('Use when looking to contribute to open-source projects, building GitHub presence, or learning contribution best practices'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'contribute to open-source', 'GitHub presence', 'contribution best practices', 'PR creation'. These align well with how users would naturally phrase requests about contributing to open source. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While focused on GitHub contribution specifically, there could be overlap with general Git skills, code review skills, or open-source documentation skills. The 'PR creation' aspect might conflict with commit message or code review skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides highly actionable guidance for GitHub contributions. The workflow clarity is excellent with explicit validation steps and feedback loops. The main weakness is some verbosity in motivational/strategic sections that Claude doesn't need, though this doesn't significantly detract from the skill's utility.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly condense 'The Strategy' section—Claude doesn't need motivation for why open-source contribution is valuable
Trim 'Building Reputation' section which explains concepts Claude already understands about consistency and community engagement
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., explaining why open-source contribution is valuable, which Claude knows). The content could be tightened—some sections like 'The Strategy' and 'Building Reputation' add motivational context that doesn't directly instruct. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout: specific gh CLI commands, exact commit message formats, detailed PR templates with markdown examples, and copy-paste ready checklists. The workflow template and quick reference sections are immediately actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit phases (Investigation → Implementation → Validation → Submission → Review), clear checkboxes, and validation checkpoints. The 'Evidence Loop' section explicitly requires proving bug exists before and after fix—a proper feedback loop for risky operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections progressing from prerequisites to advanced topics. References to external files (pr_checklist.md, project_evaluation.md, etc.) are clearly signaled and one level deep. Content is appropriately organized for discovery. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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
- daymade/claude-code-skills
- Commit
392d34c
- 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.