semantic-git
Manage Git commits using conventional commit format with atomic staging. Always generate plain git commands before running them and offer to let the user run them manually.
79
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
57%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 establishes a clear niche around conventional commits and atomic staging with a distinctive workflow, but lacks explicit trigger guidance and comprehensive action listing. It would benefit from a 'Use when...' clause and more natural user-facing keywords to improve discoverability.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'commit message', 'staged changes', 'git commit', or 'conventional commit'
Expand specific actions beyond 'manage' to include concrete verbs like 'generate commit messages', 'stage files atomically', 'format commits'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Git commits) and some actions (manage, staging, generate commands), but lacks comprehensive specific actions like 'create commit messages', 'stage files', 'review diffs'. The phrase 'manage Git commits' is somewhat vague. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (manage commits with conventional format, generate commands) but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The when is only implied through the domain context, not explicitly stated. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'Git commits', 'conventional commit', 'atomic staging', but misses common user variations like 'commit message', 'staged changes', 'git diff', or simply 'commit'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'conventional commit format' and 'atomic staging' creates a clear niche. The specific methodology (conventional commits) and workflow (generate commands first, offer manual execution) distinguishes it from generic git skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%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 skill with excellent workflow clarity and actionability. The main weakness is verbosity in explaining conventional commit concepts that Claude already knows (commit types, imperative mood rules). The zagi-awareness integration and command transparency workflow are valuable additions that justify their token cost.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly condense the 'Types' section listing all commit types with descriptions - Claude knows conventional commits
Trim the 'Subject Line' rules about imperative mood and formatting - these are standard knowledge
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., listing all commit types with descriptions Claude already knows, explaining imperative mood). The zagi-awareness section and workflow are valuable, but the conventional commit format details are standard knowledge that could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable git commands with exact syntax, clear examples of commit message formats, and specific workflow steps. The command examples are copy-paste ready and the workflow is explicit about what to run. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit validation (run CI checks before staging, stop if checks fail), clear sequencing (implement → verify → stage → suggest → generate → ask → commit → confirm), and feedback loops. Includes 'Stop and Ask Protocols' for destructive operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections, appropriate use of references at the end pointing to one-level-deep detailed files (conventional-commits.md, ci-verification.md, co-authors.md). Core content is in the main file with advanced details properly externalized. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
- 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.