CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

senior-laravel-developer-code-reviewer

Orchestrates existing Laravel skills to produce structured PR reviews

53

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/senior-laravel-developer-code-reviewer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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 body is an exemplar of conciseness with a well-structured delegation model, clear review workflow, and explicit output format, but its actionability and workflow clarity are held back by a lack of executable specifics and validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add concrete validation checkpoints between review passes (e.g. 'Only consolidate after each pass has produced at least one finding or been explicitly marked clean').

Provide a minimal concrete example of the output format with realistic bullets so the expected shape is unambiguous and copy-pasteable.

Specify fallback behavior when a delegated skill is absent (e.g. 'If no architecture skill is present, perform a minimal layering check directly') so execution does not stall on conditional skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it states delegation targets, process phases, and output sections with no padding and no re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete in structure (named skills to delegate to, ordered review passes, a 7-item prioritization list) but provides no executable commands or code and relies on delegating to other skills whose presence is conditional, leaving key execution details implicit.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The review process is clearly sequenced into four numbered passes plus a consolidation step, and the output format and prioritization are explicit; it is below 5 because there are no validation checkpoints confirming a pass is complete before moving on.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections with no monolithic wall of text and no nested references, but there are no bundle files or one-level-deep reference links to push detail into, so it stops short of the full 'clear overview with well-signaled references' anchor.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

45%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 clearly states what the skill does and is reasonably distinct, but it lacks any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance and offers only one natural keyword, which caps completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when reviewing Laravel pull requests, auditing Laravel PRs, or summarizing Laravel code changes' clause to give Claude an explicit trigger.

Expand natural trigger terms in the description itself (e.g. 'Laravel PR review', 'pull request review', 'code review') rather than burying them in the body.

List one or two more concrete actions (e.g. 'summarize architecture, test, and security findings') to lift specificity from 3 toward 4-5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a concrete domain (Laravel PR reviews) and one specific action ('produce structured PR reviews') but lists no further concrete actions, matching the 'domain + 1-2 actions, not comprehensive' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('orchestrates existing Laravel skills to produce structured PR reviews') but no 'Use when...' clause is present, so the 'when' is only weakly implied — the rubric caps completeness at 3 when trigger guidance is missing.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'PR reviews' is the only natural keyword; 'pull request review' is mentioned only in the body, not the description, so natural trigger phrases a user would say are sparse and generic.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Laravel' + 'PR reviews' carves a fairly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against a generic code-review skill, placing it just below the clearly-distinct anchor.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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
Bottelet/DaybydayCRM
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.