submit-draft-pr

Optionally create a draft PR to the upstream repo from a local source directory. Used by coding agents when a local source path is available in the context file.

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/agents-prototype/skills/submit-draft-pr/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a well-structured, actionable workflow with clear sequencing and good failure handling, though it is somewhat verbose due to the duplicated PR-body template and inline lookup table. No bundle files are present, so progressive disclosure is judged on body organization alone.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the PR-body notice block — show the required notice once and reference it in the template rather than repeating the full block verbatim.

Move the per-repo upstream table and the full PR-body template into a reference file (e.g. references/pr-template.md) and link to it, tightening the overview.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint after `git push fork` (e.g. confirm the branch exists on the fork) before running `gh pr create`, to push workflow clarity to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but the full PR-body template is duplicated (notice block repeated verbatim inside the example) and the per-repo table plus branch-naming patterns add length that could be trimmed or externalized.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides mostly executable shell commands (gh auth status, gh pr list, git checkout/commit/push, gh pr create) with concrete flags, but placeholders like <source_path>, <one-line description>, and <agent-name> require substitution, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Six clearly sequenced steps with prerequisite checks and a duplicate-PR guard, plus skip-and-log feedback for failures; falls short of 5 because explicit validation checkpoints (e.g. confirm push succeeded before creating the PR) are not fully spelled out, though the destructive/batch cap does not apply since it creates rather than destroys.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Good section structure (When to invoke, Steps, Per-repo table, Constraints) with all content at one level and no nested references; not 5 because no bundle files exist and the per-repo table / PR-body template could be split into a reference file for a leaner overview.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

46%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 states what the skill does but relies on technical jargon and lacks an explicit, natural-language trigger clause, so it reads more as an internal agent directive than a user-facing trigger. Specificity and completeness are adequate but not strong.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when you need to open a draft pull request to an upstream repo from a local source checkout.'

Include natural user-facing keywords and synonyms such as 'pull request', 'PR', 'draft PR', 'fork and push' alongside the existing technical terms.

List one or two more concrete actions (e.g. 'fork the repo, push a branch, and open a draft PR') to raise specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (draft PR creation) and a concrete action (create a draft PR) plus a precondition (local source path available), but stops short of listing multiple specific actions or comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' (optionally create a draft PR) but the 'when' is only weakly implied via 'Used by coding agents when a local source path is available' — there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping completeness at 3 per the guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Largely technical jargon ('upstream repo', 'local source directory', 'context file') with no natural trigger phrases a user would say; only 'draft PR' is a likely natural keyword, and no synonyms or file extensions are present.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is fairly specific (draft PRs to upstream repos from a local source path) and unlikely to overlap with unrelated skills, though the breadth of 'coding agents' and multiple upstream repos leaves minor overlap risk with general git/PR skills.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: openvinotoolkit/openvino
Path: .github/agents-prototype/skills/submit-draft-pr/SKILL.md
Commit: 688569c

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.