smart-commit
Run quality gates, review staged changes for issues, and create a well-crafted conventional commit. Use when ready to commit after making changes.
95
Does it follow best practices?
Validation for skill structure
Discovery
85%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-structured description that clearly articulates specific capabilities and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause. The main weakness is the trigger term coverage, which could benefit from additional natural language variations users might employ when wanting to commit code.
Suggestions
Add more natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'git commit', 'commit message', 'save my changes', or 'push code'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Run quality gates', 'review staged changes for issues', and 'create a well-crafted conventional commit'. These are distinct, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (run quality gates, review staged changes, create conventional commit) AND when ('Use when ready to commit after making changes') with an explicit trigger clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'commit', 'staged changes', and 'conventional commit', but missing common variations users might say like 'git commit', 'commit message', 'push changes', or 'check my code'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused on the commit workflow with distinct triggers around 'quality gates', 'staged changes', and 'conventional commit'. Unlikely to conflict with general code review or git skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an excellent skill that demonstrates best practices: it's concise, actionable, and well-structured. The workflow includes proper validation checkpoints (quality gates, code review scan) before the destructive commit operation. The guardrails section adds important safety constraints without being verbose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section is lean and purposeful. No explanation of what git is or how commits work. Commands are terse, lists are minimal, and the skill assumes Claude knows conventional commit conventions. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides executable bash commands, specific commit message format with examples of types, concrete code review checklist items, and explicit guardrails. Copy-paste ready throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 6-step numbered workflow with explicit sequence. Includes validation checkpoint (quality gates before commit), code review scan as verification step, and guardrails that enforce the process. The 'flag any issues before proceeding' creates a feedback loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections that flow logically from trigger to workflow to commands to output. At ~50 lines with no need for external references, the single-file structure is appropriate and easy to navigate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.