comprehensive-review-pr-enhance
tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill comprehensive-review-pr-enhanceYou are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensure PRs follow best practices for clarity, size, and reviewability.
Activation
33%The description identifies its domain (PR optimization) and mentions some capabilities but relies heavily on vague language like 'best practices' and 'high-quality'. The critical weakness is the complete absence of explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill. Additionally, the description uses second-person framing ('You are') which violates the third-person voice requirement.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'pull request', 'PR description', 'code review', 'merge request', 'PR template'
Replace vague phrases like 'ensure PRs follow best practices' with specific actions such as 'check PR size limits', 'generate review checklists', 'split large PRs into smaller changes'
Rewrite in third person voice (e.g., 'Generates comprehensive PR descriptions and automates review processes') instead of 'You are a PR optimization expert'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (PR optimization) and mentions some actions like 'generate comprehensive PR descriptions' and 'automate review processes', but uses vague terms like 'ensure PRs follow best practices' without specifying concrete actions. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. The rubric caps completeness at 2 for missing this, and the 'what' is also somewhat weak. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'pull requests', 'PR', 'code reviews', but misses common variations users might say such as 'merge request', 'PR description', 'review checklist', or 'PR template'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Focuses on PR/code review domain which provides some distinction, but 'code reviews' and 'best practices' could overlap with general code quality or git workflow skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%This skill provides a reasonable high-level framework for PR enhancement but lacks the concrete, actionable guidance needed for effective execution. The instructions are abstract ('summarize changes clearly') without examples of what good output looks like. The skill relies heavily on an external resource for actual templates but doesn't provide enough standalone value.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example showing input (sample diff or change description) and expected output (formatted PR description) to make the skill actionable
Replace vague instructions like 'Summarize changes, tests, and risks clearly' with specific templates or structured formats Claude should follow
Include a sample PR description template inline rather than only referencing external resources
Remove redundant content (description appears in both header and Context section) to improve conciseness
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is relatively brief but includes some redundancy (description repeated in header and Context section) and the 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' sections explain obvious boundaries Claude could infer. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Instructions are vague and abstract ('Analyze the diff', 'Summarize changes') with no concrete examples, templates, or executable guidance. No sample PR description format or actual commands are provided. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in a logical sequence but lack validation checkpoints, specific criteria for 'good' summaries, or feedback loops for iterating on PR quality. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References implementation-playbook.md for detailed templates which is good structure, but the main content is thin and the reference is mentioned twice without clear differentiation of what's in each location. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
75%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_trigger_hint | Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...') | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
body_steps | No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow | Warning |
Total | 12 / 16 Passed | |
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.