CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

pr-change-analysis

手动触发的 FastGPT PR 或本地分支变更梳理技能。仅当用户显式调用 $pr-change-analysis 时使用;用于 reviewer 分析一个 GitHub PR 或当前本地分支相对 upstream/main 的需求变更、影响范围、代码质量与代码风格,不用于自动审查触发。

64

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strongly executable, well-sequenced review workflow with copy-paste-ready git/gh commands, explicit safety guards around checkout, and a concrete report template. The only slack is minor verbosity and the absence of any external reference split for the repo-specific i18n and path conventions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and command-first with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line carries project-specific guidance. Minor over-length in spots (e.g. the long i18n bullet at the style section) that could be trimmed or split out.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: concrete commands ('gh pr view <pr>' with the exact field list, 'git diff upstream/main...HEAD', 'git show upstream/main:<path>'), specific project anchors ('parseApiInput', 'packages/global/openapi'), explicit i18n anti-patterns with code, and a complete markdown output template covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence (entry routing → info gathering → four review dimensions → deep-dive loop → output format) with real checkpoints: git status guard before checkout, user decision on uncommitted changes, old-behavior verification via 'git show', and the mandatory '调用链闭环'. Minor gap: no explicit re-verify/retry loop for the checkout step itself.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the skill is a single, well-sectioned file where all inline content is coherent review guidance. The detailed FastGPT i18n key rules and project-specific path conventions are inlined project knowledge that could arguably live in a reference file, keeping it just short of a fully clean split.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with a well-scoped FastGPT-specific niche and explicit conflict avoidance. Its main weakness is trigger term coverage: it relies solely on the explicit $pr-change-analysis invocation and lacks the natural keywords a user would say when they want a PR or branch reviewed.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger phrases to the description, e.g. 'use when the user asks to review a PR, 梳理分支改动, or check what changed on the current branch', so the skill is discoverable from ordinary requests rather than only explicit invocation.

Enumerate the concrete actions with stronger verbs, e.g. 'restore the requirement from the diff, judge out-of-scope changes, and report quality and style issues', to lift specificity from generic '分析' phrasing.

Include common synonyms/variations (PR review, diff analysis, 越界检查) so trigger matching covers the ways users naturally phrase this need.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (FastGPT PR or local branch vs upstream/main) and four concrete analysis targets ('需求变更、影响范围、代码质量与代码风格'). The verbs remain fairly generic ('分析/梳理') rather than enumerating distinct concrete operations, so it sits at 'several specific actions with minor gaps' rather than comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: what (analyze requirement changes, impact scope, quality, and style relative to upstream/main) and when (only on explicit $pr-change-analysis invocation, explicitly not for auto review). It falls short of anchor 5 because it provides no natural-language trigger phrases users would actually say, only the manual invocation gate.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords ('GitHub PR', '本地分支', 'upstream/main', '代码质量', '代码风格') but restricts triggering to explicit invocation ('仅当用户显式调用 $pr-change-analysis 时使用') and omits natural phrases a user would say when wanting a review (e.g. 'review this PR', '看看这个分支改了什么'). Missing common variations and synonyms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche: FastGPT-specific PR/branch review, manual-only trigger, and an explicit exclusion ('不用于自动审查触发'). Minimal overlap risk with general code-review skills because it is scoped to a specific repo's conventions and diff base.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

labring/FastGPT

Path

.agents/skills/system/pr-change-analysis/SKILL.md

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.