agent-github-pr-manager
Agent skill for github-pr-manager - invoke with $agent-github-pr-manager
43
13%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.08xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-github-pr-manager/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 an extremely weak description that fails on all dimensions. It reads as a placeholder or auto-generated stub, providing only the skill's internal name and invocation command without any information about capabilities, use cases, or trigger conditions. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to correctly select this skill from a pool of available skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Creates, reviews, merges, and manages GitHub pull requests, adds reviewers, and updates PR descriptions.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about pull requests, PRs, code reviews, merging branches, or GitHub repository management.'
Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-github-pr-manager') from the description as it is operational detail, not selection criteria, and replace it with functional information.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description provides no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for github-pr-manager' is entirely vague and does not describe what the skill actually does (e.g., create PRs, review PRs, merge PRs). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only states it's an 'agent skill' and how to invoke it, providing no functional or trigger information. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only potentially relevant term is 'github-pr-manager' which is a tool name, not a natural keyword a user would say. Missing natural terms like 'pull request', 'PR', 'review', 'merge', 'GitHub'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so generic that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. Without knowing what it does, it could conflict with any GitHub-related skill and offers no clear niche. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is overly verbose and descriptive rather than actionable, explaining many concepts Claude already understands (PR workflows, merge strategies, review best practices). While it includes some useful gh CLI commands, most content reads like a human-facing wiki page rather than a focused skill instruction. The lack of progressive disclosure, missing validation checkpoints in workflows, and heavy padding with generic knowledge significantly reduce its effectiveness.
Suggestions
Cut the content by 60-70%: remove explanations of what PRs, merge strategies, and reviews are. Focus only on project-specific conventions, exact commands, and decision criteria Claude wouldn't already know.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to workflows, e.g., 'Run `gh pr checks` and confirm all pass before proceeding to merge' as a required step rather than a vague mention.
Split the PR description template, multi-agent coordination details, and error handling into separate referenced files (e.g., [PR_TEMPLATE.md], [REVIEW_SWARM.md]) to improve progressive disclosure.
Replace vague instructions like 'Handles merge conflicts intelligently' and 'Automated resolution for simple cases' with concrete decision trees or executable commands showing exactly what Claude should do.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive content Claude already knows (what merge strategies are, what PR descriptions should contain, basic gh CLI commands). The PR description template, best practices, and multi-agent coordination sections are largely generic knowledge that wastes tokens. Much of this reads like documentation for humans, not actionable instructions for Claude. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The gh CLI commands section provides some concrete, executable commands, and the workflow patterns give numbered steps. However, most content is descriptive rather than instructive ('Creates PRs with comprehensive descriptions', 'Handles merge conflicts intelligently') without specifying exactly how Claude should perform these actions. The 'Multi-Agent Coordination' section references spawning agents without concrete implementation. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflow patterns are listed with numbered steps but lack validation checkpoints. For destructive operations like merging and force-pushing, there are no explicit verification steps (e.g., confirming CI passes before merge, validating conflict resolution). The error handling section mentions strategies but doesn't integrate them into the workflows as feedback loops. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content—from basic commands to advanced multi-agent coordination, templates, and error handling—is inlined in a single document. The PR description template, detailed review coordination guidelines, and error handling strategies could easily be split into separate referenced files. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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.
- Repository
- ruvnet/claude-flow
- Commit
01070ed
- 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.