speckit-git-remote
Detect Git remote URL for GitHub integration
66
51%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.42xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/speckit-git-remote/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 is very terse, naming only a single action without elaborating on what the skill actually accomplishes beyond detecting a remote URL. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause entirely, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill. The trigger terms are reasonable but incomplete, and the scope of 'GitHub integration' is too vague to clearly distinguish it from other Git/GitHub skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user needs to identify the GitHub repository associated with a local Git project, or when resolving remote origin URLs.'
Expand the capability description to list concrete actions beyond detection, such as 'Detect Git remote URL, resolve GitHub repository owner and name, and construct GitHub API or web URLs for integration.'
Include more natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'origin', 'repo URL', 'repository link', 'GitHub repo', or 'remote origin'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Git/GitHub) and one action ('Detect Git remote URL'), but only describes a single narrow action without listing additional concrete capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (detect Git remote URL) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite thin, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'Git', 'remote URL', and 'GitHub integration', but misses common user variations such as 'origin', 'repo URL', 'repository', or 'git remote'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to Git remote URL detection and GitHub integration, but could overlap with other Git-related or GitHub-related skills since 'GitHub integration' is broad and vague. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, focused skill for a simple task. The workflow is clear and the safety constraints (caution about GitHub assumption, graceful degradation) are well-placed. The main weakness is that the URL parsing step is descriptive rather than providing executable code or a concrete output format, and there's some redundancy between the Prerequisites and Graceful Degradation sections.
Suggestions
Add a concrete parsing snippet (regex or shell/Python code) for extracting owner/repo from both HTTPS and SSH URL formats instead of just describing the extraction
Define the expected output format explicitly (e.g., a JSON schema or variable assignments) so downstream consumers know what to expect
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but has some unnecessary explanation. The 'Graceful Degradation' section partially repeats the Prerequisites section, and the output parsing instructions explain URL parsing that Claude already knows how to do. The caution callout adds value though. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides the concrete git commands to run, but lacks executable code for the URL parsing step — it describes what to extract rather than providing a concrete regex or parsing snippet. The output format is also not specified (should it return JSON? set variables?). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | For this simple, single-purpose skill, the workflow is clear and well-sequenced: check prerequisites → run command → parse output → handle failures. The graceful degradation section serves as an implicit validation checkpoint, and the caution callout provides a clear constraint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into logical sections (Prerequisites, Execution, Output, Graceful Degradation) with clear headers and appropriate length. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- mixpanel/mixpanel-headless
- Commit
3ce3191
- 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.