CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-document

Use when reviewing a prose document — KB article, RFC, spike, runbook, PRD, design doc, knowledge-base page — hosted on Google Docs, Confluence, a local file path, or an arbitrary URL. Checks correctness, internal consistency, audience-fit, prose clarity, and external-claim verification; cross-checks against existing platform comments to avoid re-flagging; returns severity-tagged findings with anchor + quote + concrete fix. Use when asked to "review this doc / KB / RFC / spike / runbook / PRD" and the target is prose, not a code diff. Counterpart to the write-spike skill. NOT for code diffs — use /devflow:review for those.

76

Quality

95%

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

The canonical home for this skill is review-document in AndreJorgeLopes/devflow

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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 thorough, highly actionable orchestration skill with concrete tool calls, a well-sequenced multi-phase workflow, and explicit validation/feedback checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are moderate length with a few trimmable sections and referenced sibling bundle files that are absent from the evaluated bundle.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Rationalizations — STOP' table and the longest Confluence/Google-Docs caveats to reclaim context budget; the validation steps already encode the same guidance.

Ensure the referenced sibling files (AGENTS.md, TEMPLATES.md, requirements.json) ship in the bundle, or inline the minimum needed detail so navigation does not break.

Consider collapsing the Phase 0a/0b/0c fetch tables into a single platform matrix to reduce repeated header rows while preserving the concrete tool mappings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is instruction-dense and assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept padding, delegates bulk detail to siblings), but at ~170 lines / ~13KB it carries sections that could be trimmed — the 'Rationalizations — STOP' table and verbose Confluence/Google-Docs caveats — keeping it just short of the lean-every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides fully executable, parameter-level guidance — concrete MCP tool calls ('mcp__bf06f3e8-*__download_file_content' with 'exportMimeType: "text/plain"'), 'bodyFormat=storage', regex '[A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-\d+', and explicit caps ('cap 3 tickets', 'top 5 hits') — covering the common platforms copy-paste-ready.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequenced phases 0–6 with numbered sub-steps and explicit validation checkpoints (preflight 'Required dep missing → STOP', Phase 1d >10% sanity-check warn, Phase 3b cross-check), plus a 'Rationalizations — STOP' feedback table for error recovery — matching the explicit-validation-with-feedback-loops anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Appropriately externalizes bulk detail to clearly signaled one-level-deep siblings ('See AGENTS.md (sibling file) for full definitions', 'Read TEMPLATES.md (sibling) for the template'), but those referenced files (AGENTS.md, TEMPLATES.md, requirements.json) are not present in the bundle, a minor organization gap rather than a structural flaw.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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, well-structured description that concretely states capabilities, gives explicit natural-language triggers with synonyms, answers both what and when, and cleanly disambiguates from sibling code-review and spike-writing skills. No meaningful gaps relative to the rubric anchors.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions across the review surface — 'Checks correctness, internal consistency, audience-fit, prose clarity, and external-claim verification', 'cross-checks against existing platform comments', 'returns severity-tagged findings with anchor + quote + concrete fix' — giving comprehensive, not merely domain-naming, coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the five review checks + severity-tagged finding format) and when (two 'Use when...' clauses with concrete trigger phrases), satisfying the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Covers the natural phrases a user would say ('review this doc / KB / RFC / spike / runbook / PRD') plus synonyms (KB / knowledge-base, doc) and the full doc-type vocabulary, matching the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Carves a clear niche (prose review) and explicitly disambiguates from siblings — 'NOT for code diffs — use /devflow:review', 'Counterpart to the write-spike skill' — minimizing wrong-skill triggering.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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
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.