CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review

Use when reviewing a PR/MR by URL or the local working-tree diff — runs multi-perspective parallel agents (bug scanner, CLAUDE.md compliance, test coverage, plan alignment, git history, sibling MR/epic coherence) with confidence scoring and optional draft inline comments on the MR. Triggers for `/devflow:review` or any "review this PR/MR" request.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A tightly written orchestration playbook: exact CLI commands per platform, explicit mode-detection thresholds, caps and fallback rules at every phase, and a validation-heavy preflight and existing-discussion cross-check. Its main weaknesses are rule duplication between the phase sections and the 'Important rules' recap, and heavy dependence on sibling files (AGENTS.md, TEMPLATES.md, requirements.json) that are absent from the bundle, which leaves the agent definitions, scoring rubric, and comment-posting calls unavailable.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced sibling files (AGENTS.md, TEMPLATES.md, requirements.json) in the bundle — preferably under references/ — since none are present and the body's core execution (agent definitions, scoring rubric, output template, exact comment-posting API calls) depends on them.

Inline the minimal critical details currently deferred (e.g., the finding JSON schema and the gh/glab PENDING-review commands) or add a fallback for when a sibling file is unreadable, so the pipeline degrades gracefully instead of stalling.

De-duplicate the 'Important rules' section against the phase text — the pagination, never-re-flag, and local-diff-substitution rules each appear twice — to reclaim tokens without losing the do-not-skip recap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational throughout — exact gh/glab/git commands, tables, and caps, with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but several rules are stated twice (pagination in Phase 1e and 'Important rules', the never-re-flag rule in Phase 3 and 'Important rules', the local-diff-substitution rule in the 1b callout and 'Important rules'), and a few justificatory sentences ('This is the single biggest source of review-noise reduction...') could be trimmed. This matches 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the fully lean anchor 5, and is well above anchor 3.

4 / 5

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: copy-paste-ready commands for all three platforms ('gh pr diff <number> --repo <owner/repo>', 'glab api --paginate "projects/<urlenc-fullpath>/merge_requests/<n>/discussions?per_page=100"'), a task-ID regex table, named MCP tools (getJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks, searchJiraIssuesUsingJql), and concrete numbers (cap at 10 siblings, up to 3 docs, ~100,000-char diff cap). It falls short of anchor 5 because key executable details — agent definitions, the finding JSON schema, and the exact gh/glab PENDING-review calls — are deferred to sibling files (AGENTS.md, TEMPLATES.md) that are not present in the bundle, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit decision thresholds ('diff is under 50 lines', '≥50% changed lines in markdown files'), validation checkpoints (preflight STOP on missing required deps, AskUserQuestion with a non-interactive default 'never hang'), error-recovery fallbacks at every phase ('If any integration is unavailable... never block', per-file summarization past the 100k cap), a four-state cross-check taxonomy (NEW/RAISED-OPEN/RAISED-RESOLVED-FIXED/RAISED-RESOLVED-NOT-FIXED), PENDING-only comment posting as a safety checkpoint, and a closing 'Important rules (do not skip)' checklist — a clear match for anchor 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is structured as an overview/orchestrator with prominently signaled, one-level-deep references ('Read `AGENTS.md` (sibling to this SKILL.md) for the full agent definitions...', 'Read `TEMPLATES.md` (sibling) for the full scoring rubric...'), and no nested reference chains. However, verification shows none of the referenced files (AGENTS.md, TEMPLATES.md, requirements.json) exist in the bundle — there are no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories — so the content split cannot be confirmed and the delegated material is unavailable. Good structure with a real organization gap: anchor 4, not 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description that explicitly answers both what the skill does (multi-perspective parallel review agents with confidence scoring and optional draft inline comments) and when to use it (PR/MR URL, local working-tree diff, /devflow:review, 'review this PR/MR'), with concrete, third-person capability statements. The only weaknesses are a few missing natural trigger variations ('code review', 'review my changes') and a broad catch-all trigger that risks overlap with generic code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: 'runs multi-perspective parallel agents (bug scanner, CLAUDE.md compliance, test coverage, plan alignment, git history, sibling MR/epic coherence) with confidence scoring and optional draft inline comments on the MR' plus 'reviewing a PR/MR by URL or the local working-tree diff'. This matches anchor 5 rather than 4 because the action enumeration has no notable gaps, and the voice is third person ('runs', 'Triggers') so no voice penalty applies.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' is concrete ('runs multi-perspective parallel agents... with confidence scoring and optional draft inline comments') and the 'when' opens with 'Use when reviewing a PR/MR by URL or the local working-tree diff' and closes with concrete triggers ('Triggers for `/devflow:review` or any "review this PR/MR" request'). This is a direct match for the anchor-5 example pattern (capabilities + explicit trigger phrases), not anchor 4 where the 'when' is present but less specific.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-keyword coverage: 'reviewing a PR/MR', 'review this PR/MR', 'local working-tree diff', 'PR/MR by URL', and the '/devflow:review' command. It falls short of anchor 5 because common variations users would naturally say — 'code review', 'review my changes', 'review the merge request' — are absent, but it is clearly above anchor 3's 'missing common variations or synonyms'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill carves a clear niche — a consolidated multi-agent review with named perspectives (bug scanner, plan alignment, sibling MR/epic coherence) and confidence scoring — but the catch-all trigger 'any "review this PR/MR" request' overlaps with generic code-review commands and skills. That is minor overlap risk with closely related skills (anchor 4) rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5, and far above the generic anchors 1–2.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

AndreJorgeLopes/devflow

Path

skills/review/SKILL.md

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.