Content
65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured, concise, and assumes Claude's competence, but the core editing command is missing and a destructive operation lacks an explicit verification checkpoint.
Suggestions
Provide the concrete editing command, e.g. `gh pr edit <number> --title "..." --body "..."` or `gh pr edit <number> --body-file`, so the central action is copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit verification step after editing, such as re-running `gh pr view` to confirm the title and body updated correctly and no images/content were lost.
Tighten the Sapling `sl sl` output example or trim a few discursive sentences to push conciseness toward a 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient with direct imperative guidance and assumes Claude knows Git/PR basics, with only minor padding (the illustrative `sl sl` output block and a few discursive sentences) keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Supporting commands like `gh pr view ... --json number` and `sl log ...` are executable, but the central action (editing the PR) is only described as "use `gh` to edit" without the concrete `gh pr edit` command or flags, a key missing detail. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections are logically sequenced (determine PR, edit, contents, stacks, Sapling) with a soft preservation checkpoint, but overwriting a PR body is destructive with no explicit post-edit verification, capping this at 3 per the guidelines. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A compact, single-file skill with no bundle files and clear section headers (Determining the PR(s), PR Body Contents, Working with Stacks, Sapling); well-organized sections with no need for external references justify a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |