SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC changelog-generator

Produce consistent, auditable release notes from Conventional Commits. Separates commit parsing, semantic-bump logic, and changelog rendering for automated releases with editorial control. Use when cutting a release, generating CHANGELOG.md from git history, computing the next semantic version from commits, automating release notes in CI, or planning a hotfix/rollback. Examples: 'generate the changelog for v1.4.0', 'what version bump do these commits require', 'we need an emergency hotfix process'.

alirezarezvani/claude-skills Agent Skills author: alirezarezvani MIT 10 files body ≈ 1 740 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 27 h ago

Produce consistent, auditable release notes from Conventional Commits.

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerWriting and documentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
94
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 10. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 89): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 36 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 85Steps. 62 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1740 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • low 16 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 503: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 22 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 62 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
    • +3All 3 scripts are documented

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 94.