git-history-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to understand the historical context and evolution of code changes, trace the origins of specific code patterns, identify key contributors and their expertise areas, or analyze patterns in commit history. This agent excels at archaeological analysis of git repositories to provide insights about code evolution and development patterns.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:marchatton/agent-skills --skill git-history-analyzer76
Quality
66%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
95%
1.17xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/05-review/git-history-analyzer/SKILL.mdDiscovery
67%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 has good structure with an explicit 'Use when' clause that clearly defines trigger scenarios. However, it relies on somewhat abstract language ('archaeological analysis', 'insights', 'evolution') rather than concrete git operations, and could benefit from more natural trigger terms users would actually say when needing this functionality.
Suggestions
Add natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'git log', 'git blame', 'who wrote this code', 'when was this added', or 'history of this file'
Replace abstract phrases like 'archaeological analysis' and 'insights about code evolution' with concrete actions like 'run git blame', 'search commit messages', 'list commits by author'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (git repositories) and some actions like 'trace origins', 'identify contributors', 'analyze patterns', but uses somewhat abstract language like 'archaeological analysis' and 'insights' rather than listing concrete specific operations. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what ('understand historical context', 'trace origins', 'identify contributors', 'analyze patterns') AND when ('Use this agent when you need to...') with clear trigger scenarios upfront. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'git repositories', 'commit history', 'code changes', 'contributors', but misses common variations users might say like 'git log', 'blame', 'git history', 'who wrote this', or 'when was this changed'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Focuses on git history analysis which is somewhat specific, but phrases like 'understand code changes' and 'development patterns' could overlap with general code review or analysis skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides good actionable git commands with proper flags and clear output expectations. However, it lacks explicit workflow sequencing and validation steps, and includes some unnecessary framing language that could be trimmed. The content would benefit from clearer step-by-step analysis workflows and references to advanced techniques.
Suggestions
Add explicit numbered workflow steps for conducting a complete git history analysis (e.g., '1. Run broad history scan, 2. Identify key commits, 3. Deep-dive with blame')
Include validation checkpoints such as 'Verify repository has sufficient history' or 'Confirm blame output covers expected date range'
Remove framing language like 'Your specialty is uncovering the hidden stories' - Claude doesn't need motivational context
Consider splitting advanced techniques (complex blame flags, pickaxe searches) into a referenced ADVANCED.md file
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is moderately efficient but includes some unnecessary framing ('Your specialty is uncovering the hidden stories') and could be tightened. The methodology and considerations sections add bulk without proportional value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific, executable git commands with proper flags (e.g., `git blame -w -C -C -C`, `git log -S"pattern" --oneline`). Commands are copy-paste ready with clear purposes. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Lists responsibilities and methodology but lacks explicit sequencing for multi-step analysis. No validation checkpoints or feedback loops for verifying analysis accuracy or handling edge cases like missing history. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into logical sections but is somewhat monolithic. For a skill of this complexity, advanced topics like complex blame analysis or large repo strategies could be split into referenced files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.