CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pr-explainer

Use when creating an approachable, self-contained HTML review aid for a pull request; explaining what changed, why it matters, how it works, and how it fits into the broader system; turning PR diffs, commits, tests, and architecture context into a local `.pr-review/` HTML page for reviewers; or helping reviewers understand complex code changes without dumping the full diff.

75

Quality

92%

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

85%

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

A well-structured, highly actionable body with concrete commands, a usable HTML snippet, explicit checkpoints, and clean section navigation. Its main weakness is conciseness: the core explanation path is repeated across three sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the explanation path into one canonical ordered list (problem → system context → before/after → code walkthrough → tests → takeaway) and have the "Recommended HTML structure" and "Final checklist" reference it rather than restating each element.

Tighten "Write for approachability" into a short bullet set of do/don't rules, dropping prose like "Use plain language, short sections..." that restates guidance already implied by the structure section.

Consider moving the recommended HTML structure and diagram templates into a referenced file (e.g. `references/structure.md`) so the SKILL.md overview stays lean while keeping detail one level deep.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The explanation path (problem, system context, before/after, code walkthrough, tests, takeaway) is restated three times — in "Required workflow" step 2, "Recommended HTML structure", and again in the "Final checklist" — so the body is mostly efficient but could be tightened; not a 3 because the repetition costs tokens without new information, and not a 1 because it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout — exact git commands (`git diff <base>...HEAD --stat`, `git show <commit>`), a copy-pasteable HTML diff snippet, and specific verification commands (`pnpm --filter @scope/package test ...`, `pnpm turbo build --filter ...`) — matching the fully-executable anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered workflow with substeps is reinforced by an explicit "Final checklist" checkpoint and a "Verification requirements" section stating what to run and to flag unrun verification; the task is generative rather than destructive, so the missing-feedback-loop cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the body is self-contained and organized into clearly navigable sections (workflow, HTML structure, diagrams, snippets, verification, checklist); the guidance is short enough that no deeper file references are needed, so the single-file structure is appropriate rather than a monolithic wall.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, specific, third-person description with an explicit "Use when" trigger, natural trigger terms, and a distinct niche that minimizes conflict risk. It cleanly answers both what the skill does and when to use it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "creating an approachable, self-contained HTML review aid", "explaining what changed, why it matters, how it works", and "turning PR diffs, commits, tests...into a local `.pr-review/` HTML page" — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Opens with an explicit "Use when..." trigger and follows with a clear statement of what the skill produces, answering both when and what; not a 2 because the trigger is explicit rather than merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would say — "pull request", "PR", "diff", "reviewer", "code changes" — giving good coverage rather than jargon; not the level below because it spans common phrasings, not just a single keyword.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharply specific — a local `.pr-review/` HTML review aid for pull requests — making it unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills; voice is third person ("creating", "explaining", "turning", "helping"), so no specificity penalty applies.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
mastra-ai/mastra
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.