CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

gh-pr-review

Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks, React/UI conventions, and tests. Supports single-agent review with interactive fix selection or multi-agent reviewer-verifier review with risk-based auto-fix. To diagnose gaps in the skill after a review session, run `/gh-pr-review diag`.

76

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

87%

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

The body is a well-structured, lean router with concrete commands and explicit file/parameter dispatch, and it practices strong progressive disclosure by keeping all detail in one-level-deep reference files. Its one weakness is workflow clarity: it orchestrates destructive auto-fix modes without surfacing any explicit verify-before-submit checkpoint in the body itself.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint for destructive auto-fix paths in the body — e.g., a step requiring fixes to be re-verified (tests pass / verifier confirms) before results are submitted — so workflow_clarity is not capped at 2 for batch/destructive operations.

Reduce the minor redundancy between the routing table and the priority-rule blockquote, or fold the precedence rule directly into the table's Condition column, to tighten conciseness further.

Briefly state in the hand-off that target reference files are responsible for their own validation/feedback loops, so readers understand where verification lives rather than inferring it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a PR, git, or a worktree is, and uses terse routing tables and direct instructions ("Each `→` means: `Read` the target file and follow it as the sole remaining instruction"); the only mild redundancy is the priority-rule blockquote, which disambiguates a genuinely ambiguous state-vs-intent precedence and earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: exact pre-check commands (`git branch --show-current`, `git status --porcelain`), a routing table mapping conditions to specific reference files, and explicit parameter passing ("Pass `$ARGUMENTS` to the target file... also pass `FIX_MODE` (low / low_medium / full)") — copy-paste ready rather than abstract direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The routing sequence is clearly ordered top-to-bottom (pre-checks → first applicable rule → question → hand-off with FIX_MODE), but the skill routes destructive/batch auto-fix operations ("auto-fix all", "auto-fix low & medium risk") without any explicit validation or verify-before-submit checkpoint in the body — verification is only delegated to the reference files, which caps this at 2 per the destructive-operation guideline.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview/router that points to one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (cherry-review-guidance.md, diagnosis.md, pr-review.md, local-review.md, teams-review.md), all of which exist as real bundle files; detailed review logic is appropriately split out of the body with easy table-based navigation and no nested reference chains.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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.

The description is specific, complete, and distinctive: it states concrete review targets and modes, provides an explicit "Use for..." trigger clause covering both code and documentation reviews, and anchors itself to a narrow Cherry-Studio niche that minimizes conflict with other skills. It fully satisfies the what/when requirement with natural trigger terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete review targets ("local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills") and concrete modes ("interactive fix selection", "multi-agent reviewer-verifier review with risk-based auto-fix"), matching the level-3 anchor of multiple specific concrete actions rather than just naming a domain.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills") and when via an explicit "Use for code or documentation reviews that need..." trigger clause, satisfying the level-3 requirement for an explicit Use-when trigger rather than capping at 2.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms are well covered — "code or documentation reviews", "PRs", "commits", "files", "review" — which a user would naturally say; the Cherry-Studio-specific jargon (IpcApi, renderer hooks) is contextual specificity layered on top of solid natural triggers, not a replacement for them.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Cherry-Studio-specific triggers (project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, renderer hooks) carve a clear niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the level-3 clear-niche anchor.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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
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.