merge-pr
Merge a GitHub PR via squash after /preparepr. Use when asked to merge a ready PR. Do not push to main or modify code. Ensure the PR ends in MERGED state and clean up worktrees after success.
85
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
85%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 well-crafted description that clearly defines a narrow, specific task with explicit trigger guidance and behavioral constraints. Its main weakness is slightly limited trigger term coverage—missing common synonyms like 'pull request' that users might naturally use. The constraints ('Do not push to main or modify code') add useful distinctiveness.
Suggestions
Add common trigger term variations such as 'pull request', 'squash merge', or 'land PR' to improve discoverability when users use different phrasing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: merge via squash, ensure MERGED state, clean up worktrees, and specifies constraints like not pushing to main or modifying code. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Merge a GitHub PR via squash... ensure PR ends in MERGED state and clean up worktrees') and when ('Use when asked to merge a ready PR'), with an explicit trigger clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural terms like 'merge', 'PR', 'GitHub PR', and 'squash', but misses common variations like 'pull request', 'squash merge', 'land PR', or 'complete PR'. The reference to '/preparepr' is internal jargon that users wouldn't naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very distinct niche: specifically about merging PRs via squash after a preparation step, with clear constraints (no pushing to main, no code modification). Unlikely to conflict with general Git or PR creation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable skill with clear workflow sequencing and good validation checkpoints throughout the merge process. Its main weakness is some redundancy between the Safety, Completion Criteria, and Guardrails sections, which inflates token usage without adding new information. The executable shell commands and explicit error handling paths make this highly practical for Claude to follow.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'Safety', 'Completion Criteria', and 'Guardrails' sections into a single constraints section to eliminate redundancy and save tokens.
Remove the 'Execution Rule' meta-instruction about not stopping after printing the checklist — this is behavioral coaching that could be in the frontmatter description rather than consuming body tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but has some redundancy — the 'Guardrails' section at the end largely repeats the 'Safety' section, and the 'Completion Criteria' section overlaps with the workflow steps. The 'Execution Rule' section telling Claude to actually execute commands is somewhat meta-unnecessary. However, most content is actionable and not padded with explanations of basic concepts. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable shell commands for every step, with concrete gh CLI invocations, git commands, and conditional logic. Commands are copy-paste ready with clear placeholders (<PR>), and error handling paths are specified (e.g., checks pending → use --auto, merge fails → stop and report). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: sanity checks before merge (draft status, failing checks, behind main), state verification after merge (step 6), and conditional cleanup only after confirmed MERGED state. There are clear feedback loops — if checks fail, stop and run /preparepr; if merge fails, stop and report. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and headers, but it's a fairly long monolithic file (~130 lines of content) with no references to external files for detailed information. Some sections like the guardrails/safety overlap could be consolidated. For a skill of this complexity, the inline approach is acceptable but not optimal. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
- deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw
- Commit
ec8d4f8
- 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.