CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

git-pr-workflows-git-workflow

Orchestrate a comprehensive git workflow from code review through PR creation, leveraging specialized agents for quality assurance, testing, and deployment readiness. This workflow implements modern g

57

Quality

64%

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 ./skills/git-pr-workflows-git-workflow/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 multi-agent workflow with concrete prompts and validation checkpoints, but it carries generic filler and inlines material that would benefit from separate referenced files. Tightening boilerplate and splitting reference material would lift conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Remove the generic 'Use this skill when'/'Do not use this skill when'/'Instructions' boilerplate or replace it with task-specific triggers and steps.

Extract the per-agent prompt templates, Rollback Procedures, and Best Practices Reference into separate files referenced one level deep (e.g., prompts.md, rollback.md).

Add explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops between phases (e.g., if Pre-Push Validation fails, loop back to Phase 1/2 before retrying).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The agent prompts are specific and actionable, but generic boilerplate sections ('Working on complete git workflow... tasks or workflows', 'Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs') add tokens Claude does not need.

3 / 5

Actionability

Each phase gives a concrete subagent_type, a detailed prompt with a JSON output schema, and an expected output, plus commands like 'git revert <commit-hash>' and branch-naming patterns; minor gaps come from '[insert ...]' placeholders the model must fill.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-phase sequence threads context between phases and includes a Pre-Push Validation phase and a Success Criteria checklist, though explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops are only implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is well-sectioned but ~135 lines with no bundle files, inlining content (rollback procedures, best-practices reference, full prompt templates) that would be better split into referenced files.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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, specific purpose with natural trigger terms, but it omits explicit 'when to use' guidance and is truncated mid-sentence, limiting completeness. It is distinct and mostly specific but needs the missing trigger clause and the finished sentence.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete user triggers (e.g., 'Use when preparing a pull request, writing commit messages, or running pre-merge checks').

Complete the truncated second sentence so 'modern g' is not left dangling.

Include the 'pull request' synonym alongside 'PR creation' to broaden natural-language matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (git workflow) and several concrete actions — 'code review', 'PR creation', 'quality assurance', 'testing', 'deployment readiness' — though 'comprehensive' is generic filler.

4 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does but lacks any 'Use when...' trigger clause (capping at 3 per guideline), and the sentence is truncated mid-word at 'modern g'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'git workflow', 'code review', and 'PR creation' appear, but synonyms such as 'pull request' and file/extension cues are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-agent git/PR orchestration niche is fairly distinct with concrete triggers, with only minor overlap risk against generic git-helper 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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
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.