CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

split-pr

Analyzes current changes and suggests how to split them into smaller, reviewable PRs

54

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/split-pr/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

The content is a well-structured, actionable guide with concrete git commands and worked examples sequenced into a clear workflow. Its main weaknesses are redundancy across the closing sections and the absence of explicit validation checkpoints confirming each proposed PR is independently valid.

Suggestions

Collapse "Best Practices", "Notes", and "User Interaction" into a single section to remove repeated guidance (e.g. independent test passing).

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow, e.g. "Verify each proposed PR passes tests/builds independently before finalizing the plan."

Consider moving the three worked Examples and Common Split Patterns into a separate references file to slim the main SKILL.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with concrete git commands and no basic-concept padding, but it repeats the same guidance across "Best Practices", "Notes", and "User Interaction" (e.g. each PR passing tests independently), which could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready git commands (git diff main...HEAD --stat, git log, etc.) and concrete worked examples with file/line counts, but the core splitting decision remains judgment-based and the output template uses placeholders, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step numbered sequence (analyze, evaluate, group, propose, order, present) is present, but explicit validation checkpoints/feedback loops (e.g. verifying each proposed PR compiles/tests independently) are only implied, not stated as workflow checkpoints.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and all content is inline, but it is well-organized with clear section headers and no nested references; the ~200 lines of examples and split patterns could optionally be externalized, leaving minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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.

The description is clear and reasonably specific about analyzing changes and splitting PRs, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and offers only a thin set of natural trigger terms. It is distinct enough as a niche but would benefit from explicit usage triggers and more keyword variants.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when a PR has too many files or lines, or when the user asks to split, shrink, or break up a pull request."

Broaden trigger-term coverage with synonyms like "pull request", "shrink", "break up", and "diff".

Mention concrete thresholds or signals (e.g. "exceeds ~400 lines or 10 files") so the "when" is explicit rather than implied.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and two concrete actions ("Analyzes current changes" and "suggests how to split them into smaller, reviewable PRs") but offers no further actions, matching the 1-2 concrete actions anchor rather than the several-action level 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" but no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3 with the "when" only weakly implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms ("split", "PRs", "reviewable") that users would say, but the set is small and lacks common synonyms/variations ("pull request", "shrink", "break up"), matching the missing-variations anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PR-splitting niche is mostly distinct from other skills with only minor overlap risk against general git/PR tooling; it is not a level-5 clear-niche because the missing explicit triggers reduce distinctiveness slightly.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
stacklok/toolhive
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.