agent-issue-tracker

Agent skill for issue-tracker - invoke with $agent-issue-tracker

2.61x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

81%

2.61x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

35%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a verbose, monolithic document heavy on generic boilerplate and emoji templates. It offers concrete tool examples but with incomplete/placeholder details and no validation checkpoints around its batch operations, and it makes no use of progressive disclosure via separate reference files.

Suggestions

Trim the restated capability lists and emoji-heavy template prose to assume Claude's competence; keep only the unique issue-creation patterns and parameters.

Add validation/feedback steps to the batch issue workflow, e.g. verify each 'gh issue create' succeeded with 'gh issue view <number>' and retry or report on failure.

Move the reusable issue/bug templates into separate reference files (e.g. references/integration-template.md, references/bug-template.md) and link them one level deep from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~290-line body is padded with emoji-laden template boilerplate, restated capability lists, and generic swarm-coordination prose that Claude already understands, matching the 'verbose; padded with unnecessary context' anchor rather than the lean level 3.	1 / 3
Actionability	It provides concrete tool invocations with parameters (swarm_init, create_issue, gh issue create) but mixes in placeholders like ':owner/:repo' and malformed '$' repo paths and pseudocode-style MCP calls, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Sequenced multi-step workflows are present, but the batch issue operations include no validation or verification steps (e.g. confirm an issue was created, handle gh failure), and the rubric caps workflow_clarity at 2 when batch operations lack feedback loops.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Everything is inline in a single 290-line file with headings for structure but no references to separate files and no bundle files present; templates and examples that could be split out remain inline, matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

17%

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 frontmatter description is too sparse and jargon-heavy: it names the domain but states no concrete actions, no natural trigger terms, and no 'when to use' guidance. It reads as an invocation stub rather than a discoverable, self-describing skill description.

Suggestions

Replace the description with concrete actions, e.g. 'Create, update, and triage GitHub issues; coordinate multi-issue projects with labels and milestones.'

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when the user asks to create, organize, or track GitHub issues, manage a project backlog, or coordinate related issues.'

Drop the invocation jargon ('$agent-issue-tracker') from the description and surface natural terms like 'issues', 'bugs', 'backlog', and 'project tracking'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('issue-tracker') via 'Agent skill for issue-tracker', but it lists no concrete actions like creating, tracking, or triaging issues, matching the anchor that names the domain and some actions but is not comprehensive.	2 / 3
Completeness	It gives a weak 'what' (an agent skill for issue tracking) but no 'when' guidance at all, and the judging guidelines cap completeness at 2 only when a 'Use when...' clause exists; absent here, it falls to the missing-when anchor at score 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It uses only technical/invocation jargon ('$agent-issue-tracker', 'issue-tracker') rather than natural phrases a user would say ('issues', 'bugs', 'project tracking'), matching the 'technical jargon or overly generic' anchor.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'issue-tracker' is a somewhat specific niche, but the bare 'Agent skill for issue-tracker' phrasing could still overlap with other project-management or issue skills, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 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: ruvnet/claude-flow
Commit: 03d4f84

Reviewed: 2 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.