odyssey4me/code-review
Review PRs, MRs, and Gerrit changes with focus on security, maintainability, and architectural fit. Leverages github, gitlab, or gerrit skills based on repository context. Use when asked to review my code, check this PR, review a pull request, look at a merge request, review a patchset, or provide code review feedback.
93
93%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
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 strong skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, scope, and trigger conditions. It covers multiple platforms (GitHub, GitLab, Gerrit) with specific review focus areas and includes a comprehensive 'Use when' clause with natural language trigger phrases. The description is concise yet thorough, making it easy for Claude to select appropriately.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple concrete actions ('Review PRs, MRs, and Gerrit changes') and specifies focus areas ('security, maintainability, and architectural fit'). Also mentions leveraging specific platform skills (github, gitlab, gerrit). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (review PRs/MRs/Gerrit changes with focus on security, maintainability, architectural fit) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with multiple trigger phrases). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural user terms: 'review my code', 'check this PR', 'review a pull request', 'look at a merge request', 'review a patchset', 'code review feedback'. These are phrases users would naturally say, covering multiple platform variations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to code review across specific platforms (GitHub, GitLab, Gerrit). The combination of review focus areas and platform specificity makes it distinct from general coding skills or individual platform skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured orchestration skill with clear, actionable workflows and good progressive disclosure to sub-skills. The workflow steps are well-sequenced with appropriate decision points and validation checkpoints. The main weakness is moderate verbosity — some sections (Model Guidance, Troubleshooting, Examples) could be tightened since they partially repeat information already conveyed in the workflow.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Model Guidance' section as it provides no actionable information for Claude.
Condense the Examples section — the first example narrates the exact same steps already defined in the Workflow section, adding little value.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity. The 'Model Guidance' section is filler, the authentication section restates what the sub-skills already handle, and the examples section largely repeats what the workflow already describes. The YAML example for repository context is helpful but lengthy. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, executable commands for each platform at every step. The workflow includes specific CLI invocations (gh pr diff, glab mr diff, git diff HEAD~1), exact script paths, and a complete output template for review findings. Commands are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step workflow is clearly sequenced (Steps 0-6) with explicit decision points (CI status assessment in Step 3 with branching behavior, platform detection logic in Step 1). Step 3 acts as a validation checkpoint that adjusts subsequent review scope. The feedback loop of detecting failures and adjusting review focus is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a clear overview with well-organized sections and references out to sub-skills (github, gitlab, gerrit) and a detailed checklist file (references/review-checklist.md). References are one level deep and clearly signaled. Content is appropriately split between the overview workflow and delegated details. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Reviewed
Table of Contents