CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

3-verify-pr-fix

Verify PR #N, does this PR fix #M, check the fix in #N, or test the candidate PR.

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

96%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 body is an exemplary operational skill: lean, fully executable bash with error handling, a clearly sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints, guarded state restoration, and explicit exit criteria. The only notable weakness is that all content lives inline in SKILL.md with no reference/script split, which is acceptable for a single linear workflow but leaves some reusable blocks inlined.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, no padding. Every line carries project-specific knowledge (e.g., "Running workers hold stale code", "A success here never refutes a reporter failure on a different account", the hard-flags list). This matches anchor 5 (lean, assumes Claude's competence, every token earns its place); there are no minor over-explanations that would justify a 4.

5 / 5

Actionability

The skill is fully executable and copy-paste ready: concrete gh/jq commands, guarded checkout with a cleanup trap, port probing, a server readiness loop with failure output ("Server died during startup. Tail of ..."), the full MCP initialize/initialized/tools/call handshake, and a diff step. Common and failure cases are both covered, matching anchor 5. It is not a 4 because there are no gaps — even error paths include what to print and when to exit.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four numbered sections form a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints at every risky step: input parsing fails fast ("Invalid input: '$ARGUMENTS'"), a dirty-tree check aborts checkout, baseline files are checked with [ ! -s ] before any live replay, server readiness and Mcp-Session-Id are verified, and protocol errors are classified as execution limits. There are feedback loops ("ask before checkout", "If either file is missing... Offer the evidence-and-code path"), per-step exit criteria ("This step is complete when..."), a defined outcome taxonomy, and a Non-negotiables checklist. This matches anchor 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the body is well-sectioned with clear headers and each block placed where the workflow needs it. However, the skill is ~160 lines, and heavyweight inline blocks — the ~30-line MCP startup/handshake sequence and the audit hard-flags — could plausibly live in shared scripts/reference files for reuse across the skill family. That minor organization gap matches anchor 4 (good structure, most content appropriately placed) rather than anchor 5 (well-signaled one-level-deep references with appropriate split).

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 concise, concrete, and built from natural trigger phrasings, giving it good trigger quality and distinctiveness. Its main weaknesses are a thin "what" (one action with no scope of what verification covers) and the absence of any explicit "Use when..." guidance, which caps completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., "Use when the user wants to confirm whether a candidate PR actually fixes its linked issue before merging."

Briefly state what verification comprises, e.g., "Reviews the PR diff against the linked issue packet, audits for locale-dependent selectors and missing tests, and optionally replays the issue repro against the PR branch."

Include a couple more natural trigger variants users might say, such as "review the candidate PR" or "is the bug fixed in this PR", to round out keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and a concrete action ("Verify PR #N", "does this PR fix #M", "check the fix in #N", "test the candidate PR"), but these are all phrasing variations of a single verify action rather than several distinct capabilities, and it never says what verification involves. This matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) better than anchor 4, which expects several distinct specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Verify PR #N") but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the "when" is only weakly implied by the rephrased trigger sentences. Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit when-clause caps completeness at 3, and anchor 3 (clear what, when missing or weakly implied) is the best fit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are well covered — "Verify PR #N", "does this PR fix #M", "check the fix in #N", "test the candidate PR" — including synonyms (verify/check/test) and the candidate-PR framing. A few natural terms a user might say are still missing (e.g., "review the PR", "validate", "is the bug fixed"), so it falls just short of the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"does this PR fix #M" and "test the candidate PR" carve out a fairly distinct fix-verification niche with low conflict risk. It is not a 5 because generic phrases like "Verify PR" and "test the candidate PR" could still collide with general PR-review skills in the same family.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server

Path

.agents/skills/3-verify-pr-fix/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.