agent-swarm-pr

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

2.62x

Quality

10%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

2.62x

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-swarm-pr/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 every dimension. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what domain it operates in. It reads more like a stub or placeholder than a functional skill description.

Suggestions

Describe the concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Creates pull requests, reviews code changes, manages PR workflows across multiple repositories').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would say (e.g., 'Use when the user asks about pull requests, PR reviews, code merging, or multi-repo PR management').

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-swarm-pr') from the description and replace it with functional details about what the skill does and when it should be selected.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for swarm-pr' 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 contextual information.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only keyword is 'swarm-pr', which is a technical/internal name rather than a natural term a user would say. There are no natural language trigger terms like 'pull request', 'PR review', 'code review', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so generic ('agent skill') that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. Without knowing what it does, it could conflict with any number of other skills.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

20%

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

This skill is excessively verbose and largely aspirational rather than actionable. It references CLI tools and syntax that appear fabricated, with no validation that the commands actually work. The content would benefit enormously from being reduced to ~50 lines of actual, verified instructions with references to supplementary files for advanced topics.

Suggestions

Verify that all CLI commands (npx ruv-swarm ...) actually exist and work as documented; replace speculative commands with real, executable alternatives using the listed MCP tools

Reduce content by 70-80% — remove duplicate sections, the webhook handler, the GitHub Actions YAML, and the label mapping JSON, moving them to separate reference files if needed

Add explicit validation checkpoints for the PR merge workflow (e.g., verify CI passes, confirm review approvals, validate no merge conflicts before proceeding)

Fix MCP tool call syntax to match actual invocation format rather than pseudo-JSON notation

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~300+ lines with massive redundancy. Multiple sections show the same concepts (PR init, review, merge) repeated in different forms. Includes explanations of basic concepts, hypothetical webhook handlers, and speculative CLI commands that likely don't exist. The 'Advanced Swarm PR Coordination' section largely duplicates earlier content with MCP tool syntax.	1 / 3
Actionability	The commands reference a tool ('npx ruv-swarm') with no evidence it exists or works as shown. The MCP tool invocations use incorrect syntax (JSON-like objects instead of actual tool call format). The webhook handler is incomplete (missing body parsing). Most code is aspirational/speculative rather than executable.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There are some sequential workflows present (e.g., PR init → progress → review → merge), and the Claude Code integration section outlines a 5-step process. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery steps for what are clearly complex, multi-step operations involving destructive actions like auto-merging PRs.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References to related files (swarm-issue.md, sync-coordinator.md, workflow-automation.md) exist at the bottom, which is good. However, the main file is a monolithic wall of content that should be split — the webhook handler, GitHub Actions config, label mapping, and advanced coordination sections could all be separate files. The structure has headers but too much inline content.	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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/ruflo
Commit: ccb062f

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.