CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

demand-first-review

Use when reviewing a PR, API, IPC channel, endpoint, parameter, type, config, or architectural extension point that adds or expands shared surface area, especially when consumers are absent, exports are unused or speculative, existing consumers are hack-heavy, forward compatibility is claimed, or multiple similar APIs may express one demand.

68

Quality

83%

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

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 tight, information-dense methodology with a well-sequenced workflow, an explicit architectural test checklist, and a red-flags feedback loop. The main gap is the absence of a worked example and the lack of any reference/bundle split for a skill that is slightly long for a single file.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example (a speculative endpoint or unused export) traced through Steps 1–7 to make the procedure fully concrete.

Consider moving the Rationalization Guards table and Calibration examples into a references file, keeping SKILL.md as the overview, to improve progressive disclosure for the longer-than-50-line body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Principle, Workflow, Rationalization Guards, Red Flags, Calibration) earns its tokens and assumes the reader's competence.

5 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete procedural guidance — 'List every new surface and exact consumed dimension', a five-part architectural test with explicit criteria, classification taxonomies, and seven named decision outcomes — but provides no worked walkthrough applying the procedure to a realistic example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced seven-step workflow is backed by an explicit checklist (the five-part test) and a feedback loop ('Pause and restart from Step 1 when…' in Red Flags), with the 'Decide, then review implementation' step gating downstream work.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well organized under clear section headers and is self-contained with no nested references, but it is a single ~100-line file with no progressive-disclosure mechanism splitting detail into bundle files, so it sits just below the ideal.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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, specific trigger description that names a precise review niche and lists concrete surface-area targets with natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is that the 'what' describes only 'reviewing' without surfacing the demand-first audit methodology the skill actually applies.

Suggestions

Add a brief clause stating the core action, e.g. 'Audits the demand chain (root outcome → demand → owner → contract → consumer) before reviewing implementation quality', so the 'what' is as explicit as the 'when'.

Include one or two natural synonyms such as 'interface' or 'abstraction' alongside 'API' and 'architectural extension point' to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete review targets ('PR, API, IPC channel, endpoint, parameter, type, config, or architectural extension point') rather than vague language, but the only action verb is 'reviewing', so it stops short of naming the distinct review operations the skill performs.

4 / 5

Completeness

It has an explicit 'Use when' clause with concrete trigger conditions and states the 'what' (reviewing shared-surface-area additions), but the 'what' does not reveal the demand-first methodology or the review's actual outputs, keeping it just below a fully explicit answer.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It uses natural reviewer vocabulary ('PR', 'API', 'endpoint', 'config', 'exports', 'forward compatibility', 'consumers') that a user would plausibly say, with good synonym coverage, though a few common variants ('interface', 'abstraction') are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The framing ('adds or expands shared surface area', 'consumers are absent', 'exports are unused or speculative', 'hack-heavy', 'forward compatibility is claimed') carves a clear niche with minimal overlap against generic code-review skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
CherryHQ/cherry-studio
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.