CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

pr-to-green

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

Quality

79%

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

81%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-sequenced, highly actionable maintainer workflow with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops, and it stays lean without padding. Its only real weakness is structural: all detail lives in one file, and a few operational specifics (gate commands, monitoring timeout) are left implicit.

Suggestions

Name the concrete full-gate commands (e.g. the exact make targets or prek invocation) instead of "full gate commands required by project norms".

Give a concrete monitoring timeout and re-check cadence for "gh pr checks <number>" rather than leaving it unspecified.

Consider moving the subagent handoff details and escalation criteria into reference files to keep SKILL.md as a tighter overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, though a few lines could be trimmed (e.g. "Each subagent runs in its own context window and returns a condensed result"), matching the efficient-with-minor-trimming anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands appear throughout ("gh pr view <number>", "gh pr checkout <number>", "git rebase upstream/<base-branch>", "uv run pytest", "prek run --all-files", "git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U"), with minor gaps such as the unnamed "full gate commands required by project norms" and no concrete timeout for monitoring remote checks.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow has explicit validation checkpoints (re-run targeted checks after conflict resolution, escalating-scope verification, "Do not push until a full local pass"), a feedback loop (loop back to step 3 on new failures), and an early-exit green check — matching the anchor with explicit validation and error-recovery loops rather than the minor-gaps anchor below it.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so the skill is a single well-sectioned file with one clearly signaled one-level-deep external reference (".agents/skills/python-environment/SKILL.md"); however, the lengthy escalation-clause and subagent details sit fully inline where reference files could carry them, matching the good-structure-with-minor-gaps anchor rather than the well-split anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 communicates a clear, fairly specific capability set for greening PRs in a CausalPy context with good natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is the complete absence of an explicit "Use when..." clause, which caps completeness and limits trigger coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when a PR has failing CI checks, merge conflicts, or is behind the base branch and needs to be brought to green."

Include common trigger variations such as "CI", "rebase", and "failing tests" to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Mention the PR status-update deliverable (reporting what was fixed and what remains) so the capability list is more comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "syncing with main", "resolving conflicts safely", "fixing failing checks with CausalPy conventions" — but omits other capabilities the skill covers (push, remote check monitoring, maintainer status update), so it falls short of comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clearly stated (sync, resolve conflicts, fix failing checks) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "pull request", "green", "conflicts", and "failing checks" are present and would be said by users, but common variations such as "CI", "rebase", or "failing tests" are missing, matching the good-but-incomplete keyword anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Bring a pull request to green" plus the CausalPy-specific scoping carves a clear niche with distinct triggers, though it could still mildly overlap with generic CI-fix or git-workflow skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

pymc-labs/CausalPy

Path

.agents/skills/pr-to-green/SKILL.md

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.