agent-pr-manager

Agent skill for pr-manager - invoke with $agent-pr-manager

3.94x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

75%

3.94x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-pr-manager/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

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 provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what triggers should activate it. It reads as a placeholder rather than a functional description.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Creates, reviews, and manages pull requests, updates PR descriptions, adds reviewers, and handles merge operations.'

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 PR descriptions.'

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-pr-manager') from the description, as it is operational detail that doesn't help Claude decide when to select this skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for pr-manager' is entirely vague and does not describe what the skill actually does.	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 'pr-manager', which is a tool name rather than a natural keyword a user would say. Missing terms like 'pull request', 'PR review', 'merge', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so generic that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. 'Agent skill for pr-manager' could overlap with any PR-related skill and gives 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 padded with aspirational descriptions (capabilities, best practices, error handling) that don't provide actionable guidance. While it includes concrete-looking code examples, they use pseudo-syntax with hardcoded values and lack validation checkpoints for destructive operations like PR merges. The monolithic structure with no external file references makes it difficult to navigate and wastes token budget on content that could be split or removed.

Suggestions

Cut the 'Capabilities', 'Best Practices', 'Integration with Other Modes', and 'Error Handling' sections entirely or reduce them to 2-3 lines each—they describe aspirations rather than instruct Claude on specific actions.

Add explicit validation checkpoints in workflows: e.g., 'Check `gh pr checks` passes before merging', 'If merge conflicts exist, run conflict resolution before retry'.

Replace hardcoded repo names and PR numbers with placeholder variables (e.g., `:owner/:repo`, `:pr_number`) and clarify the pseudo-JavaScript syntax—either make it valid tool invocation syntax or use a clearly labeled format.

Move detailed examples (batch operations, multi-file review) to a separate EXAMPLES.md file and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with links.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with significant padding. The 'Capabilities' bullet list, 'Best Practices' section, 'Integration with Other Modes', and 'Error Handling' sections are largely aspirational descriptions rather than actionable content. Many sections describe what the system does rather than instructing Claude on what to do. The content could be cut by 60%+ without losing actionable information.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains concrete code examples with specific MCP tool calls and gh CLI commands, which is good. However, the JavaScript examples are not truly executable—they use pseudo-syntax (e.g., `mcp__claude-flow__swarm_init { topology: "mesh" }` is not valid JS), hardcoded repo names/PR numbers make them non-generalizable, and sections like 'Error Handling' and 'Best Practices' are entirely abstract with no concrete implementation.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The numbered usage patterns (Create PR, Review, Merge) provide a reasonable sequence, and the batch operations example shows a lifecycle. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops—no 'if merge fails, do X' steps, no 'verify PR status before merging' gates. For destructive operations like merging PRs, this lack of validation caps the score at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	This is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files for detailed content. Everything is inline—the batch operations, best practices, error handling, and integration notes all live in one long document. The references to other modes ($github issue-tracker, $sparc reviewer) are mentioned but not linked to actual files. Content like the full API examples could be split into separate reference files.	1 / 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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/claude-flow
Commit: 01070ed

Reviewed: 3 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.