BC pr-review
Reviews pull requests with scope validation, requirements compliance, and line comments. Use when reviewing GitHub or GitLab PRs.
Reviews pull requests with scope validation, requirements compliance, and line comments.
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
AnalyzerGitHubGitLabPersonal productivityQuality controltype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Hermes Agent
How to improve
- For Hermes the description must be one sentence under 60 characters; move the conditions to a "When to Use" section.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
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: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-long-hermesdescription is 129 chars; the Hermes authoring standard requires ≤ 60 (one sentence, ending with a period) - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5306 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "alwaysApply" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "usage_patterns" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "complexity" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "model_hint" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "estimated_tokens" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "progressive_loading" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "modules" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "dependencies" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "role" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 85, 376): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5306 tokens
- 85Steps. 90 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low 11 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 129: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 37 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 90 items
- +4Has examples (14 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.