git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance

You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensu

Quality

37%

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 ./skills/git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

35%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 skill body is well-organized and concise but largely generic: its instructions describe what to do without executable guidance, and the single detailed reference points to a missing file. It reads as a templated scaffold rather than actionable, verified direction.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract instruction bullets with concrete, executable steps or example commands for generating and reviewing PR descriptions.

Create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' (or remove the reference) so progressive-disclosure navigation is not broken.

Add an explicit validation/verification checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., 'Verify the PR description covers each Output Format section before finalizing').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it redundantly restates the frontmatter persona verbatim ('You are a PR optimization expert...') and includes generic instruction bullets ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs') that could be tightened, matching anchor 2.	2 / 3
Actionability	The Instructions ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes', 'Provide actionable steps and verification') are abstract directions with no concrete code, commands, or examples, and the only detailed reference points to a non-existent file, matching anchor 1 ('describes rather than instructs').	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A loose four-step sequence is listed and the Output Format enumerates deliverables, but validation is only mentioned abstractly ('validate outcomes') with no explicit checkpoints or error-recovery loop, so it sits at anchor 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-sectioned and short, but it twice references 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' which does not exist in the bundle, so the navigation is broken rather than cleanly one-level-deep, keeping it at anchor 2.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

40%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 conveys a clear PR-enhancement domain and a few concrete actions, but it is written in second person, omits any 'Use when' trigger clause, and is truncated mid-word ('ensu'), all of which cap it at the middle band. It is distinguishable but not as trigger-rich as the top anchors.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g., 'Generates comprehensive PR descriptions and automates review processes') to avoid the second-person specificity penalty.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when creating or improving pull requests, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for code review.'

Complete the truncated final word ('ensu' -> 'ensure ...') so the description is not cut off.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Phrases like 'Generate comprehensive PR descriptions' and 'automate review processes' name domain actions (anchor 2), but the description uses second-person voice ('You are a PR optimization expert'), which the guidelines penalize by reducing specificity by 1, dropping it to 1.	1 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does ('Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes') but never states when to use it; per the guidelines a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and it is not 1 because the 'what' is clearly present.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant natural terms a user might say ('pull requests', 'PR', 'PR descriptions', 'code reviews'), but lacks common trigger variations and any explicit 'Use when' phrasing, matching anchor 2 rather than the broad coverage of anchor 3.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The PR/code-review niche ('pull requests', 'code reviews') is somewhat distinct, but 'automate review processes' is broad enough to overlap with general code-review skills and there are no explicit distinct triggers, so it sits at anchor 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 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: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/SKILL.md
Commit: e63f7dd

Reviewed: 13 days 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.