Content
93%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
An efficient, highly actionable skill body that sequences the commit workflow clearly and includes a real error-recovery feedback loop for hook failures. The only gap is a slightly vague review step and no explicit success-verification checkpoint.
Suggestions
Tighten step 2 ("Review the changed files") into a concrete checkpoint, e.g. "Inspect `git diff --cached` to confirm staged changes match intent before committing."
Add an explicit post-commit verification such as `git log -1 --stat` to confirm the commit landed as expected.
Optionally state what to do when the working tree has both staged and unstaged changes that should be split into separate commits.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, offering concrete commands and rules with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the top conciseness anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides fully executable commands (e.g. `git status --short`, `git diff --cached --stat`, `git commit -m`) plus a complete conventional-commit template and allowed-types list, covering the common cases copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence with a pre-check (step 3), secret guard (step 5), and a hook-failure retry feedback loop; held below 5 because "Review the changed files" is underspecified and there is no explicit post-commit success verification. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with well-organized sections (Workflow, Message guidelines, Commit rules) and no need for external references, satisfying the simple-skill exception for the top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |