github-issue-dedupe
Detect duplicate GitHub issues using semantic search and keyword matching. Use when asked to find duplicates, check for similar issues, or set up automated duplicate detection.
80
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Critical
Do not install without reviewing
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/github-issue-dedupe/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
100%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 is a well-crafted skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, uses natural trigger terms, and explicitly states both what it does and when to use it. It occupies a distinct niche (GitHub issue duplicate detection) that minimizes conflict risk with other skills. The description is concise without sacrificing clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'semantic search', 'keyword matching', 'find duplicates', 'check for similar issues', 'set up automated duplicate detection'. These are concrete, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Detect duplicate GitHub issues using semantic search and keyword matching') and when ('Use when asked to find duplicates, check for similar issues, or set up automated duplicate detection') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'duplicate', 'duplicates', 'similar issues', 'GitHub issues', 'duplicate detection'. These cover the main ways a user would phrase such a request. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive — scoped specifically to GitHub issues and duplicate detection. The combination of 'GitHub issues' + 'duplicate' + 'semantic search' creates a clear niche unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable framework for duplicate issue detection with good examples and clear comment formatting rules. However, it leans toward describing what to do rather than providing fully executable, systematic guidance—the search strategy is underspecified and the workflow lacks validation checkpoints. The examples are helpful but verbose, and the promised GitHub Actions automation is never delivered.
Suggestions
Make the search strategy more concrete by providing specific gh search query patterns (e.g., exact error message quoting, label filters, date ranges) rather than abstract descriptions like 'search for similar symptoms'.
Add a validation step after posting the comment (e.g., `gh issue view <number> --comments` to verify the comment was posted) and an explicit exit/do-nothing path in the workflow for low-confidence cases.
Move the detailed examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file and reference it from the main skill, or condense them significantly—Example 2 and 3 could each be half their current length.
Either add the GitHub Actions automation content mentioned in the intro or remove that claim to avoid misleading expectations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some content Claude could infer (e.g., the detailed comparison criteria like 'same area of code?' and the low confidence indicators are somewhat obvious). The examples section, while useful, is quite lengthy and could be more compact. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete gh CLI commands and clear comment formatting rules, but the core search strategy is vague—it says 'use multiple strategies' and 'search for similar error messages' without providing executable search patterns or a systematic approach. The gathering step is descriptive rather than instructive. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced and the confidence threshold (90%+) is a good checkpoint. However, there's no validation or feedback loop—no step to verify the comment was posted correctly, no guidance on what to do if search returns too many or too few results, and no explicit 'stop and do nothing' exit path integrated into the workflow steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear headers and sections, but the three detailed examples make the file quite long. The examples could be in a separate file, and the GitHub Actions automation mentioned in the intro is never addressed, which is a missed opportunity for a reference link. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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.
- Repository
- warpdotdev/oz-skills
- Commit
6c08c49
- 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.