CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pr-to-green

Bring a pull request to green by syncing with main, resolving conflicts safely, and fixing failing checks with CausalPy conventions.

64

Quality

76%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/pr-to-green/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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 a well-structured, actionable maintainer workflow with concrete commands, explicit validation checkpoints, and feedback loops; its only real weakness is minor structural repetition in the escalation clauses that could be tightened.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

It is lean and command-dense with no re-explanation of git/PR concepts Claude already knows, but the two parallel escalation sections and some precondition phrasing could be tightened, fitting 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the fully lean level-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete executable commands appear throughout (gh pr view/checkout/checks, git fetch/rebase/push, prek run --all-files, git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U, $CONDA_EXE run -n CausalPy), matching the level-3 copy-paste-ready anchor rather than the pseudocode level-2 case.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 6-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (re-run targeted checks, full local pass before push) and a feedback loop ('loop back to step 3 with the new failure set'), so it is not capped at 2 despite involving git operations.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are claimed; the single SKILL.md is organized into clear, well-signaled sections (When to use, Preconditions, Workflow, Subagent delegation, Guardrails) with no nested references, which the simple-skill scoring note allows to score 3.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

67%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 distinctive with concrete actions and a clear CausalPy niche, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, leaving its completeness and trigger-term coverage at the mid level.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a PR is behind main, has merge conflicts, or has failing CI checks (tests, lint, docs, packaging) and needs to go green.'

Add common natural variations a user would say — 'rebase with main', 'CI failing', 'tests failing', 'resolve merge conflicts' — to improve trigger-term coverage.

Keep the third-person imperative voice but pair the action list with the 'when' guidance so both 'what' and 'when' are explicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "syncing with main", "resolving conflicts safely", "fixing failing checks" — matching the level-3 anchor of several specific concrete actions rather than the level-2 single-domain phrasing.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does but provides no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger; per the guidelines a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 2, and it is not the level-1 case where 'what' itself is weak.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "pull request", "conflicts", and "failing checks" are natural, but there is no explicit trigger clause and common variations a user would say (rebase, CI, tests failing) are missing, so it lands at level 2 rather than full coverage at 3.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "CausalPy conventions" qualifier plus the narrow "bring a PR to green" maintainer workflow give it a clear niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, matching the level-3 distinct-anchor case.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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
pymc-labs/CausalPy
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.