CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

babysit

Drive a PR to a clean review (Greptile 5/5, zero open threads) — ships if needed, keeps it mergeable against staging, re-triggers both Greptile and cubic, fixes real findings, replies to and resolves every thread, and loops until clean

65

Quality

82%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

An exceptionally actionable, well-validated operational loop: exact commands, explicit clean-state criteria, feedback loops, and stop conditions. The only weaknesses are minor verbosity in steps 6–7 and the Hard Rules recap, and a single-file layout that could offload some detail to a reference file.

Suggestions

Tighten steps 6 and 7 by moving the multi-clause justifications ('A babysit loop spanning a long session is exactly the scenario...') into brief rationale notes, letting the imperative commands lead.

Consider moving the deep /ship sync-check choreography referenced in step 6 into a short reference file (e.g. references/sync-check.md) to reduce SKILL.md inline length while keeping the checklist one level deep.

The 'Hard rules' section duplicates steps 5 and 8; either fold the unique rules (prod-evidence scrubbing, never drop a finding) into the loop steps or keep Hard Rules as the single home and trim the inline repetition.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with workflow-specific gotchas rather than concepts Claude already knows — e.g. the GraphQL pagination guard and the stale-cubic-round caveat earn their tokens. Minor trim candidates exist: the 'Hard rules' section restates steps 5 and 8, and steps 6–7 use long parenthetical sentences that could be tightened. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' better than the 3 anchor's unnecessary explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste `gh pr view`/`gh api graphql` commands including the complete reviewThreads query, the resolveReviewThread mutation, the reply REST call, exact trigger strings ('@greptile', '@cubic-dev-ai review this PR'), and concrete git commands ('git rebase origin/staging', '--force-with-lease'). Placeholders like <n> and <owner>/<repo> are appropriately parameterized.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A 10-step loop with an explicit 'Definition of clean' requiring three fresh conditions, pending-check handling, pagination until hasNextPage is false, per-round state re-checks, post-push verify, confirm-both-reviewers-pending before waiting, conflict recovery via rebase, and explicit stop conditions. Validation and feedback loops (fix → reply → resolve → re-review, re-trigger if a bot stayed 'pass') are thorough, so the destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single file is well-sectioned (When to use, Inputs, Two reviewers, Definition of clean, Loop, Reporting, Public-repo hygiene, Hard rules) with one-level cross-references to the /ship skill for delegated detail. At ~190 lines with some inline operational detail (e.g. the sync-check narrative in step 6) that could live in a reference file, this sits at 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than the fully split 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A highly specific, distinctive description that clearly states what the skill does, but it omits when to use it. Adding an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases like "babysit this PR" or "keep working the reviews until it's clean" would raise both completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when the user says "babysit this PR", "keep working the reviews until it's clean", or wants the review loop automated after /ship' — this lifts completeness from the missing-trigger cap of 3.

Include natural user phrasings and synonyms such as 'pull request', 'review comments/threads', and 'babysit' so trigger matching catches how users actually ask for this skill.

Consider trimming the mid-sentence parenthetical '(Greptile 5/5, zero open threads)' into the trailing conditions to keep the opening clause scannable while retaining the measurable end state.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "ships if needed", "keeps it mergeable against staging", "re-triggers both Greptile and cubic", "fixes real findings", "replies to and resolves every thread", "loops until clean" — with a measurable end state ("Greptile 5/5, zero open threads"). Coverage is comprehensive for this workflow, matching the top anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' of a 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and detailed (ship, re-trigger both bots, fix, reply, resolve, loop), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "PR", "review", "clean", "Greptile", and "cubic" are present, but the natural phrases a user would actually say — "babysit this PR", "pull request", "review comments" — are missing. It has some relevant keywords but lacks common variations and synonyms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Named reviewers ("Greptile 5/5", "cubic") and a specific clean-review end state define a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk. Only "ships if needed" slightly overlaps a generic ship/review skill, which is not enough to drop to the 'minor overlap risk' anchor at 4.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

simstudioai/sim

Path

.agents/skills/babysit/SKILL.md

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.