Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
97
95%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description effectively communicates when to use the skill with strong trigger terms around completion claims and PR creation. It clearly establishes the 'what' and 'when' with explicit guidance. The main weakness is that the specific verification actions could be more concrete (e.g., 'run tests', 'check build status') rather than the generic 'verification commands'.
Suggestions
Add specific examples of verification commands: 'run tests, check linting, verify builds' instead of generic 'verification commands'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (verification before claims) and some actions ('running verification commands', 'confirming output'), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'run tests', 'check linting', 'verify build succeeds'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('running verification commands and confirming output before making success claims') and when ('about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs'). Has explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users/Claude would encounter: 'complete', 'fixed', 'passing', 'committing', 'creating PRs', 'success claims'. These are terms that naturally appear when finishing work. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused on the specific moment before claiming completion - distinct from general testing skills or commit message skills. The 'evidence before assertions' principle is unique and unlikely to conflict. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an exemplary skill that efficiently communicates a critical verification discipline. It uses tables effectively to contrast correct/incorrect behaviors, provides a clear gate function workflow, and addresses common rationalizations. The content is appropriately scoped and every section serves a clear purpose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section earns its place with actionable tables, clear patterns, and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The content is dense with useful information without padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete verification patterns with specific examples (test commands, exit codes, red-green TDD cycle). The tables clearly distinguish correct vs incorrect approaches with executable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step Gate Function provides an explicit, sequenced workflow with clear validation checkpoints. The red-green regression test pattern explicitly includes verification loops. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear sections (Overview, Gate Function, Common Failures, Red Flags, etc.). For a skill of this scope with no need for external references, the structure is appropriate and navigable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 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.
c10c616
Table of Contents
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.