CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

arn-code-review-plan

This skill should be used when the user says "review plan", "validate plan", "check plan", "sanity check the plan", "verify plan", "review my plan", "audit plan", "is my plan ready", or wants to validate a structured project plan for completeness, correctness, and pattern compliance before execution. Checks structural completeness, document quality, dependency graph consistency, codebase reference validity, and pattern compliance. Offers to fix found issues interactively and can proceed directly to arn-code-taskify when the plan passes.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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, highly actionable skill for a complex multi-step plan review workflow. Its greatest strengths are the clear step sequencing with validation checkpoints, explicit error handling, and concrete examples of findings and fixes. The main weakness is that the document is quite long with some content that could be more concise or split into reference files for better progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Consider moving the detailed remediation interaction logic (Step 6) and report JSON structure details (Step 7) into separate reference files to reduce the main skill's length and improve progressive disclosure.

Trim the repeated fix suggestion examples — 1-2 examples per step would be sufficient since Claude can generalize the pattern from fewer examples.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is fairly long but most content is necessary for the complex multi-step workflow. However, there's some verbosity in repeated example suggestions across steps (3-4 examples per step when 1-2 would suffice) and some explanatory text that could be tightened. The remediation options section is particularly verbose with full dialogue scripts.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides highly concrete, specific guidance throughout: exact file paths to read, specific check IDs to use, precise report format with template, exact directory structures, specific user prompts to present, and detailed examples of actionable fix suggestions. Every step has clear instructions on what to do and what output to produce.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: Step 1 validates config exists before proceeding, Step 2 classifies findings by severity, Step 5 reports before remediation, Step 6 includes re-validation after fixes ('Re-run only the checks that had findings to verify the fixes resolved them'), and Step 7 gates next steps on error status. The feedback loop for remediation is explicit and well-structured.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references external files appropriately (validation-checks.md, pattern docs, report templates) but all 7 steps with full detail are inline in a single long document. The validation checks are correctly externalized to a reference file, but the remediation logic, report format, and pattern compliance details could benefit from being split into separate reference files. No bundle files were provided to verify referenced paths exist.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

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.

This is a strong skill description that excels across all dimensions. It provides an extensive list of natural trigger phrases, clearly describes specific validation actions, and explicitly states both when to use it and what it does. The description is well-structured, uses third person voice correctly, and carves out a distinct niche that would be easy for Claude to differentiate from other skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: checks structural completeness, document quality, dependency graph consistency, codebase reference validity, pattern compliance, offers to fix issues interactively, and can proceed to arn-code-taskify.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (checks structural completeness, document quality, dependency graph consistency, codebase reference validity, pattern compliance, offers fixes) and 'when' (explicit list of trigger phrases plus 'wants to validate a structured project plan').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger phrases users would say: 'review plan', 'validate plan', 'check plan', 'sanity check the plan', 'verify plan', 'audit plan', 'is my plan ready'. These are highly natural and cover many variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: validating structured project plans before execution. The specific domain (project plan validation with dependency graphs, codebase references, pattern compliance) and the named downstream skill (arn-code-taskify) make it unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
AppsVortex/arness
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.