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. Review depth adapts to diff size and runtime subagent capability (single-agent or multi-agent reviewer-verifier). Report-only by default; code fixes and GitHub submission each require explicit invocation-time authorization (`fix` / `submit`). Normal-review prompts and safe interruption behavior follow the interaction contract below. To diagnose gaps in the skill after a review session, run `/gh-pr-review diag`.

70

Quality

85%

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

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.

A well-structured, highly actionable routing skill with excellent progressive disclosure and concrete commands. Its main weakness is verbosity in the Product Demand and interaction-contract sections, which could be tightened for token efficiency.

Suggestions

Tighten the Product Demand gate and Interaction/interruption contract prose by converting explanatory sentences into terse rules; remove restated categories to cut tokens.

Inline the validate->fix->retry loop for applied fixes instead of only referencing AGENTS.md, so the workflow's feedback loop is self-contained.

Collapse duplicated authority-model phrasing (the Route section restates fix/submit flag handling already covered in the Authority model section).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and operational without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but several sections (Product Demand gate, interaction contract) carry explanatory prose and repetition that could be tightened beyond a minor trim.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: concrete git/pnpm commands, explicit thresholds (CHANGED_LINES <= 1000, CHANGED_FILES <= 20), a concrete routing table, and explicit anti-patterns like "Never `pnpm test <path>`".

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear ordered stages and first-match routing with explicit validation rules and authority gates, but the validate-fix-retry feedback loop is partly delegated to an external AGENTS.md section rather than fully inlined.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview pointing to 10 verified one-level-deep reference files, each explicitly signaled by path in tables and prose, with the stages table declared as the single source of truth for navigation.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 description that clearly states capabilities, when to invoke, and its distinct niche, using proper third-person voice. It is slightly heavy on internal jargon, which keeps trigger-term quality just under perfect.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions and targets (branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, skills) plus concrete review domains like IpcApi/DataApi boundaries and renderer hooks, giving comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (automated Cherry Studio review across target types with project-specific rules) and when ("Use for code or documentation reviews that need...") with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage (code review, PR, commits, files, docs), but leans on internal jargon (IpcApi, DataApi, main/renderer/shared) and lacks file-extension synonyms, so a few natural terms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to Cherry Studio with project-specific tech-stack triggers, giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against general review skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.