CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

senior-laravel-developer-code-reviewer

Orchestrates existing Laravel skills to produce structured PR reviews

55

Quality

61%

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

72%

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

The content is admirably concise and well-structured with a clear sequenced review process and prioritization, but it lacks concrete executable guidance and verification checkpoints, and its delegation model is conditional without a defined fallback. Strengthening actionability and feedback loops would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Add concrete, copy-paste-ready output templates for each section (Critical Issues, Important Issues, Suggested Fixes) so the output format is actionable rather than described.

Specify explicit behavior when a delegated skill is absent (e.g. fallback heuristics for security review when security-review-checklist skill is missing).

Insert a verification checkpoint before consolidation, e.g. cross-check each reported violation against the relevant skill's rule and drop unconfirmed findings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and directive, explicitly forbids restating rules and explaining SOLID/DRY theory, and assumes Claude's competence, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives specific delegation lists, per-pass focus areas, a prioritization order, and an output format, but the delegated skills are only referenced by name with conditional availability ('when present') and weak fallback, and no concrete executable commands or templates are provided, fitting 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four passes (Architecture, Test, Security, Consolidation) are clearly sequenced with a prioritization list and output sections, but there are no verification checkpoints confirming findings before output and behavior is unspecified when delegated skills are absent, matching 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single well-organized SKILL.md with clear section headers and no external bundle files to navigate, matching the 'well-organized sections' allowance for self-contained skills and the 'clear overview' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 concise, third-person, and names a clear niche, but it omits an explicit 'Use when' trigger and lists only a single composite action rather than multiple concrete capabilities. It is serviceable but would benefit from explicit trigger guidance and a fuller enumeration of what it does.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing a Laravel pull request or when the user asks for a structured PR/code review of Laravel changes.'

Enumerate concrete review actions (e.g. architecture, test, security passes) rather than the single composite 'orchestrates skills to produce structured PR reviews'.

Include common trigger variations such as 'pull request', 'code review', and 'merge request' to improve natural-keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a concrete domain and action ("Orchestrates existing Laravel skills to produce structured PR reviews") but lists only one composite action rather than multiple specific concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

States what the skill does (orchestrate skills for structured PR reviews) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the guidelines completeness is capped at 2 ('has what, but when is missing or only implied').

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms ("Laravel", "PR reviews", "structured PR reviews") a user might say, but misses common variations such as 'pull request', 'code review', or 'merge request', fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Laravel PR-review niche is fairly specific, but the orchestration framing could still overlap with general code-review skills, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 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.