CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

codex-pr-body

Update the title and body of one or more pull requests.

58

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.codex/skills/codex-pr-body/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is well-organized, actionable, and appropriately self-contained for a focused single-purpose skill, with executable gh/sl commands and a useful output example. The main gap is the absence of an explicit verification step after destructively rewriting the PR body.

Suggestions

Add an explicit post-edit verification checkpoint, e.g., re-read the updated PR body with `gh pr view` to confirm formatting and that no preserved content (images, links) was lost.

Tighten the more prosey directives ('It is critically important to...', 'It is generally frowned upon to...') into direct imperatives to improve token efficiency.

Consider a brief ordered checklist for the body-rewrite flow (locate PR -> read existing body -> preserve key info -> rewrite why/what -> verify) to make the sequence and checkpoint explicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and stays focused, but some prose could be tightened (e.g., 'It is critically important to explain _why_...', 'It is generally frowned upon to discuss...'), so it is mostly efficient rather than fully lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable commands such as `gh pr view <branch> --repo openai/codex --json number --jq '.number'`, `sl log --template '{github_pull_request_url}' -r .`, and `sl sl`, plus a real example transcript with annotated output, matching the fully-executable score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The process (determine PR, check existing body to preserve info, rewrite why/then what, format, reference related items) is sequenced and includes a preservation checkpoint, but rewriting a PR body is destructive and there is no explicit validate/verify step after editing, capping workflow clarity at 2 per the batch/destructive guideline.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and is organized into clear, well-signaled sections (Determining the PR(s), PR Body Contents, Working with Stacks, Sapling) with no nested references, which satisfies the simple-skill allowance for a top score.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

60%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 specific and clearly identifies the PR-title/body editing niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and only offers one natural keyword. Adding trigger guidance and term variations would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to update or rewrite a pull request title or body.'

Include natural keyword variations such as 'PR', 'PR description', and 'PR body' alongside 'pull requests'.

Sharpen distinctiveness by contrasting with PR creation, e.g., 'Edits existing PR metadata rather than creating new PRs.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'Update the title and body of one or more pull requests' lists multiple specific concrete actions (update title, update body) against a clear domain, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does (update title and body) but lacks any 'Use when...' trigger guidance, so the 'when' is missing rather than explicit, capping completeness at 2 per the guidelines.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes the natural term 'pull requests' but omits common variations users would say (e.g., 'PR', 'PR body', 'PR description'), so coverage is partial rather than complete.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'pull requests' and the narrow action of updating PR metadata give it a recognizable niche, but the sparse trigger language could still overlap with general PR-creation or git workflow skills, matching the score-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

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
openinterpreter/openinterpreter
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.