Name: azure-sdk-mgmt-pr-review
Rating: 63.2 (1 reviews)
Author: Azure

Blog Docs Log in Get started

azure-sdk-mgmt-pr-review

Review Azure SDK management-plane pull requests, check naming conventions, API compatibility, and code quality.

Quality

74%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

—

The risk profile of this skill

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/azure-sdk-mgmt-pr-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

78%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.

The content is highly actionable with exact commands, paths, and TypeSpec syntax, and the three-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with verification checkpoints. The main weakness is progressive disclosure: extensive rule tables are inlined in SKILL.md with no reference files to split them out.

Suggestions

Move the detailed naming-suffix, type-formatting, and contextual-naming rule tables into a reference file (e.g. references/naming-rules.md) and link to it from a concise summary in SKILL.md.

Add an explicit validate->fix->retry loop note for the contextual naming inventory step to strengthen workflow_clarity toward 5.

Tighten the longest rule enumerations (e.g. the operation/model/property bullet list) by grouping related rules or referencing a checklist file.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and domain-specific, assuming Claude's knowledge of .NET/TypeSpec/ApiCompat with no concept padding, though a few lengthy rule enumerations could be marginally tightened. Not 5 because some enumeration density could be trimmed without losing clarity; not 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation of known concepts.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready PowerShell commands with exact parameters, concrete file paths for comment targeting, and precise TypeSpec syntax like '@@clientName(..., Azure.ClientGenerator.Core.exact("Old_Name"), "csharp")'. Fully executable guidance covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Three phases are explicitly sequenced with decision gates ('Continue to Phase 2 unless...') and a verification checkpoint ('The number of verdicts must equal the number of NEW entries'). Not 5 because error-recovery feedback loops are lighter than the validate->fix->retry ideal; not 3 because explicit validation/checkpoints are present for this batch operation.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized, but no bundle reference files exist and large detailed rule sets (naming-suffix table, type-formatting table, contextual naming rules) are inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into one-level-deep references. Not 4 because content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined with no external navigation; not 2 because section structure is present and coherent.	3 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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.

The description is specific and clearly distinct, naming a well-scoped domain with several concrete review actions. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing Azure SDK for .NET management-plane pull requests, or when the user mentions mgmt SDK PRs, naming conventions, or breaking changes.'

Replace the generic 'code quality' with concrete sub-actions (e.g. 'validate ApiCompat baselines, detect breaking changes') to lift specificity toward 5.

Include natural synonyms and extensions like '.NET', 'ARM', and 'breaking changes' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('check naming conventions, API compatibility, and code quality') against a named domain, with only the generic 'code quality' term leaving a minor gap. Not 3 because more than 1-2 specific actions are named; not 5 because 'code quality' is less concrete than the other actions and coverage is not comprehensive.	4 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' (review PRs; check naming, API compatibility, code quality) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely weak.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say ('Azure SDK management-plane pull requests', 'naming conventions', 'API compatibility') with good keyword coverage. Not 3 because coverage is solid rather than partial; not 5 because common synonyms/extensions like '.NET', 'breaking changes', or 'ARM' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Azure SDK management-plane pull requests' carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against other skills. Not 4 because the scoping is precise enough that overlap with adjacent skills is negligible.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: Azure/azure-sdk-for-net
Path: .github/skills/azure-sdk-mgmt-pr-review/SKILL.md
Commit: b82d2f2

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.