git-workflow-general

Git workflow: branch naming, conventional commits, PR conventions, and merge strategies

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/git-workflow-general/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

32%

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 identifies a clear domain (git workflow) and lists relevant subtopics, but reads more like a topic list than an actionable skill description. It lacks concrete actions (what does it do—generate, validate, format?) and entirely omits a 'Use when...' clause, making it harder for Claude to know when to select this skill over others.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about branch naming conventions, commit message formatting, pull request best practices, or merge/rebase strategies.'

Replace category labels with concrete actions, e.g., 'Generates branch names following conventions, formats conventional commit messages, defines PR templates, and recommends merge strategies.'

Include common user-facing trigger terms and variations such as 'commit message', 'pull request', 'git branch', 'rebase', 'squash merge', and 'PR description'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (git workflow) and lists several areas (branch naming, conventional commits, PR conventions, merge strategies), but these are categories rather than concrete actions. It doesn't specify what it actually does with these (e.g., 'generates branch names', 'formats commit messages').	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes 'what' at a high level (git workflow topics) but completely lacks any 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also weak enough to warrant a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'branch naming', 'conventional commits', 'PR conventions', and 'merge strategies' that users might mention, but misses common variations like 'commit message', 'pull request', 'git branch', 'merge', 'rebase', or 'git workflow'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The git workflow focus is somewhat specific, but 'conventional commits' and 'PR conventions' could overlap with other skills related to code review, commit message generation, or general git usage. The lack of explicit triggers increases conflict risk.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

87%

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-crafted, concise skill that efficiently communicates git workflow conventions with concrete examples and clear structure. Its main weakness is the lack of explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow sequence—for instance, ensuring CI passes or tests run before key transitions. Overall it's a strong instructional skill that respects Claude's intelligence while providing actionable, specific guidance.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'Run tests locally before pushing' and 'Verify CI is green before requesting review', to create a clearer sequential workflow with feedback loops.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Every token earns its place. The skill uses tables, terse examples, and bullet points without explaining what git, branches, or commits are. No unnecessary preamble or concept explanations.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete branch naming patterns, a full commit message example with realistic content, specific merge strategy rules, and clear PR conventions. The guidance is specific and directly usable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The sections cover the full git workflow lifecycle (branch → commit → PR → merge) in a logical sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops—e.g., no mention of running tests before committing, or verifying CI status before requesting review.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	For a skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections with appropriate depth. No monolithic walls of text or unnecessary nesting.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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.

Repository: ucdavis/ai-skills-registry
Commit: c0b2e4b

Reviewed: about 14 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.