CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

hefgi/review-workflow

Iterative code-review loop — a review workflow scores the diff by severity; Claude fixes critical/major/minor issues, commits each round, and re-reviews until clean. Project-agnostic, any git repo.

73

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable and superbly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and a clean delegation of the workflow engine to one bundled reference file. Its main weakness is verbosity from a redundant 'How it works' overview table and repeated reviewer-agent notes that restate the Instructions.

Suggestions

Fold or trim the 'How it works (two actors)' table so it does not duplicate the Instructions; keep it as a one-line orientation or remove it in favor of the step-by-step section.

Consolidate the reviewer-agent guidance into a single location (step 1 or Notes) instead of restating the runtime-registry caveat twice.

Consider moving the model-ladder, strictness, and maxRounds resolution tables into a short reference snippet so the core loop steps read more leanly.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and avoids explaining basics Claude knows, but the body is long with redundancy — the 'How it works' table largely restates the Instructions, and the reviewer-agent guidance is repeated across step 1 and the Notes.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable guidance: the exact `Workflow({ scriptPath, args: { scopeMode, round, paths, reviewModel, reviewerAgentType } })` call, a copy-paste `find -L` locator command, and concrete `git add`/`git commit` commands.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced seven-step process with explicit validation checkpoints — tier-clean check, no-progress guard, and iteration cap — plus a review→fix→commit→re-review feedback loop for recovery.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md is an orchestration overview that delegates the heavy review engine to a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep bundled reference (`references/review-loop.mjs`), referenced by exact path throughout.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

The description is third-person, specific, and complete with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause covering natural user phrasings. It is somewhat long due to the configuration-knob detail, but every part earns its place and it does not pad with concepts Claude already knows.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'scores the diff by severity, Claude fixes the issues at the chosen strictness, commits, then re-reviews — looping until the review comes back clean' — rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the iterative review-fix-commit-re-review loop) and when via a literal 'Use when the user asks to review-and-fix in a loop...' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses natural phrases a user would say — 'review-and-fix in a loop', 'do a feedback pass', 'keep reviewing until clean' — alongside concrete domain terms (code-review, git).

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clearly distinct niche (looping review-and-fix with model escalation and strictness controls) with specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents