chained-pr
Trigger: PRs over 400 lines, stacked PRs, review slices. Split oversized changes into chained PRs that protect review focus.
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%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 a well-crafted description with strong trigger terms and clear when/what guidance. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could enumerate more specific actions beyond just 'split into chained PRs' (e.g., managing dependencies, updating PR descriptions, setting base branches). Overall it effectively communicates a distinct, well-scoped skill.
Suggestions
Expand the capability list with more specific actions, e.g., 'creates dependent branches, updates base branches, generates per-slice PR descriptions' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (PR splitting) and a key action ('split oversized changes into chained PRs'), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like creating branches, updating base branches, or managing dependencies between stacked PRs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what ('Split oversized changes into chained PRs that protect review focus') and when ('PRs over 400 lines, stacked PRs, review slices') with clear trigger conditions, even though it uses 'Trigger:' instead of 'Use when...'. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'PRs over 400 lines', 'stacked PRs', 'review slices', 'oversized changes', 'chained PRs'. These cover common variations of how users describe the need to split large pull requests. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — splitting large PRs into stacked/chained PRs is a very specific workflow unlikely to conflict with general code review, git, or PR creation skills. The specific triggers like '400 lines' and 'stacked PRs' clearly delineate its scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise skill that clearly defines when and how to split oversized PRs into chained PRs. Its main strength is the tight decision table and hard rules that leave little ambiguity. Its primary weakness is the lack of concrete, executable examples (git commands, PR body templates, dependency diagram samples) inline—these appear to be delegated entirely to a references file that wasn't provided for verification.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete example inline, such as a sample dependency diagram with the 📍 marker or a minimal PR body Chain Context section, so the skill is actionable even without the references file.
Include example git/gh CLI commands for the two chain strategies (stacked to main vs. feature branch chain) to make the execution steps copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section is lean and purposeful. No unnecessary explanations of what PRs are or why code review matters. The decision table and hard rules are tightly written, and each token contributes actionable information. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides clear rules, a decision table, and execution steps, but lacks concrete executable examples—no actual git/gh commands, no example PR body template, no sample dependency diagram. The references file presumably contains these details but isn't available to verify. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six execution steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation (step 5 includes CI/tests/docs/manual checks, rollback scope, and clean diff verification). The decision gates provide clear branching logic, and the tracker PR mechanism provides a feedback loop for the feature branch chain strategy. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is a single reference to chaining-details.md for strategy diagrams, branch commands, and reviewer guidance, which is well-signaled. However, the bundle file wasn't provided, so we can't verify the reference exists. The skill itself could benefit from a brief inline example (e.g., a sample dependency diagram) to reduce reliance on the single external file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.