CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

github-workflow-automation

Advanced GitHub Actions workflow automation with AI swarm coordination, intelligent CI/CD pipelines, and comprehensive repository management

62

2.41x
Quality

47%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

87%

2.41x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/github-workflow-automation/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is github-workflow-automation in ruvnet/agentic-flow

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

42%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 command-dense and well-sectioned but bloated: it inlines an entire template library and command reference into a single 1000+ line SKILL.md despite claiming progressive disclosure, mixes executable examples with pseudo-syntax, and offers batch/destructive automation without validation checkpoints. It functions better as a catalog than as an instructive workflow document.

Suggestions

Split the eight workflow templates and the Command Reference into references/ files (e.g. references/workflow-templates.md, references/commands.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with one-level-deep links, matching the frontmatter's progressive_disclosure claim.

Convert pseudo-syntax blocks (the mcp__claude-flow__swarm_init snippets, the '[Concurrent Execution]' listing, and the mixed action.yml/JavaScript custom-action example) into real, executable code or remove them.

Add validation steps before destructive/batch operations — e.g. dry-run or confirmation checks before auto-creating security issues, auto-fix PRs in the self-healing pipeline, and auto-execute deployments.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body runs ~1040 lines with pervasive padding: near-duplicate 'npx ruv-swarm actions ...' command variants, eight full workflow templates inlined, a command reference, version history, 'Skill Status: Production Ready' banners, and external links. It matches 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary or padded sections' — not 1 because it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, and not 3 because the redundancy is pervasive rather than incidental.

2 / 5

Actionability

Most bash and YAML blocks are concrete, but several sections are pseudocode or malformed: the 'mcp__claude-flow__swarm_init { ... }' MCP snippets are not real syntax, the '[Concurrent Execution]: Bash(...)' batch block is illustrative pseudo-listing, and the custom action example mixes action.yml YAML into a JavaScript code block. This fits 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code' better than the 'minor gaps' anchor above.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Quick Start through the Integration Checklist provides a rough setup sequence, but batch and destructive operations (auto-creating security issues from scheduled scans, self-healing auto-fix with automatic PRs, auto-execute deployment, batch PR/issue creation) have no validation or verification steps, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers and collapsible <details> blocks give real navigation, but the frontmatter claims 'progressive_disclosure: true' while no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist — hundreds of lines of workflow templates and a command reference are inlined where they belong in separate files. This matches 'content that should be separate is inline' rather than the 'minimal structure' anchor below.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Description

52%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 names a clear domain with good natural trigger keywords, but it relies on buzzword-heavy generic capability claims with no concrete actions and completely lacks a 'when to use' trigger clause. It reads like marketing copy rather than a routing description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user mentions GitHub Actions, CI/CD pipelines, .github/workflows files, or failed workflow runs.'

Replace buzzword phrases ('Advanced', 'AI swarm coordination', 'intelligent', 'comprehensive') with concrete actions such as 'generate workflows, optimize pipeline parallelism, analyze failed runs, manage releases and PRs'.

Narrow the scope claim ('comprehensive repository management') to reduce overlap with related skills like ci-cd-optimization and github-pr-enhancement.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('GitHub Actions workflow automation') but its action phrases are generic noun categories ('CI/CD pipelines', 'repository management') padded with buzzwords ('Advanced', 'AI swarm coordination', 'intelligent', 'comprehensive'). No concrete verbs like generate, optimize, or analyze-failure appear, so it matches the 'actions are minimal or generic' anchor rather than the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor above.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is reasonably clear (GitHub Actions automation, CI/CD pipelines, repository management) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or any equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 2 because the 'what' is not vague; it is not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely implicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present: 'GitHub Actions', 'workflow', 'CI/CD', 'pipelines', 'repository'. Coverage is good but misses common variations like '.github/workflows', 'GitHub workflow', and 'pipeline' as a standalone term, fitting the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'GitHub Actions workflow automation' is a distinct niche, but 'comprehensive repository management' and the broad CI/CD claims overlap with the skill's own listed related skills (github-pr-enhancement, release-coordination, ci-cd-optimization), matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' anchor.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1066 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
ruvnet/RuView
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.