CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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

51

Quality

56%

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-pr-enhance/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

51%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 well-structured and concise, with good progressive disclosure offloading detail to one external resource. However, its instructions and workflow are abstract and lack executable detail or validation steps.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, runnable example (e.g., a sample PR description template or a command/CLI snippet) so guidance is executable rather than purely abstract.

Turn the Instructions into a real sequenced workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verify tests pass, confirm diff size thresholds) before producing the output.

Inline a brief actionable pattern or two from the playbook so the skill stands on its own without requiring the external file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with short, focused sections and no padding about what a PR is; the closing line restates the intro's 'easy to review / well-documented' idea, a minor redundancy that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Instructions are high-level ('Clarify goals...', 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') with no concrete commands, code, or worked examples; real detail is deferred to an external file rather than given inline.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are listed but abstract and not a true sequence, with no validation checkpoints or feedback loops despite PR review automation being a context where validation matters.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with clean section headers and a single clearly-signaled one-level reference to resources/implementation-playbook.md; content is appropriately split and easy to navigate.

5 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 a clear domain and a couple of concrete actions but lacks any 'when to use' trigger guidance and is truncated mid-word. It is reasonably distinctive but not comprehensive or trigger-complete.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when creating or improving pull requests, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review').

Complete the truncated sentence and finish the third action so the capability list is not cut off.

Include common synonyms/extensions users actually say ('PR', 'pull request', 'PR description') to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the PR domain and a few concrete actions ('Generate comprehensive PR descriptions', 'automate review processes'), but the sentence is truncated mid-word ('and ensu'), leaving coverage incomplete rather than comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

There is a clear 'what' (PR optimization, generating descriptions, automating reviews) but no 'Use when...' trigger clause, which the rubric caps at 3; the truncation further weakens completeness.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user might say ('pull requests', 'PR descriptions', 'code reviews'), but is missing common variations and synonyms such as 'PR', 'write a PR', or file/extension forms.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'PR optimization expert' / 'pull request enhancement' is a fairly specific niche with minor overlap risk against general git skills, though 'automate review processes' reads broadly.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.