branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
58
66%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./internal/assets/skills/branch-pr/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
67%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 provides a clear trigger clause and identifies the PR domain, which is good for completeness. However, 'Gentle AI' is unexplained jargon that reduces clarity, and the specific capabilities beyond 'issue-first checks' are not elaborated. The trigger terms cover the basics but miss common variations users might use.
Suggestions
Explain what 'Gentle AI' means or remove the branding term—describe the actual behavior (e.g., 'Creates pull requests that verify linked issues exist before submission').
Add more natural trigger term variations such as 'PR', 'merge request', 'submit code for review', 'open a PR'.
List additional concrete actions beyond 'issue-first checks' (e.g., 'generates PR descriptions, links issues, validates branch naming conventions').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (pull requests) and mentions 'issue-first checks' as a specific action, but doesn't elaborate on what concrete steps are involved beyond that. 'Gentle AI' is unclear branding/jargon without further explanation of what it entails. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both 'what' (create pull requests with issue-first checks) and 'when' (trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review). The trigger clause is explicit and clearly stated. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some natural terms like 'creating', 'opening', 'preparing PRs for review', and 'pull requests', but misses common variations like 'PR', 'merge request', 'code review', 'submit changes'. 'Gentle AI' is not a term users would naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Gentle AI' adds some distinctiveness as a specific workflow/brand, but 'pull requests' is a broad domain that could overlap with general git workflow skills, code review skills, or CI/CD skills. The 'issue-first checks' detail helps somewhat but isn't fully explained. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides highly actionable, concrete guidance for creating PRs with specific regex patterns, commands, and label mappings. However, it is somewhat verbose with redundant tables and lacks explicit error recovery/feedback loops in the workflow. The monolithic structure would benefit from splitting reference tables into separate files for better progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Add explicit error recovery steps to the workflow (e.g., 'If shellcheck fails: fix issues and re-run before proceeding', 'If linked issue lacks status:approved: request approval before opening PR')
Move the detailed branch naming table and conventional commit type-to-label mapping into a separate reference file, keeping only the regex and a couple of examples inline
Consolidate the branch type table — the regex + format line + one example is sufficient; the full 11-row table is redundant
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes redundant information — the branch naming table repeats what the regex and format line already convey, and the full 11-row type-to-label mapping for conventional commits is verbose. The PR body format section is thorough but could be tightened since Claude can infer template structure from a brief description. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete regex patterns, exact bash commands, specific label names, table mappings, and copy-paste ready examples for commits and branch names. The Commands section at the end gives fully executable CLI sequences. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced, but validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit — there's no feedback loop for what to do if shellcheck fails, if the issue doesn't have the approved label, or if automated checks fail. For a process involving automated blocking checks, explicit error recovery steps are needed. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a single monolithic file with no references to supporting documents, despite being ~150 lines with detailed tables that could be split out (e.g., commit type mappings, PR template details). The sections are well-organized with clear headers, but the length would benefit from splitting reference material into separate files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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
- sergiodvillegas-art/gentle-ai
- Commit
3bfa934
- 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.