CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review

How to review code; a pull request, feature branch, local changes etc.

56

Quality

65%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 content is token-efficient and well-structured with clearly signaled cross-references, but the review guidance itself stays at a checklist level without concrete methods for executing or validating the review.

Suggestions

Add brief, concrete guidance on how to surface findings (e.g. read the diff, group comments by file/severity) so the checklist becomes executable rather than categorical.

Include a light validation step such as confirming comments reference specific lines or re-running affected tests before reporting, to add a checkpoint to the workflow.

Consider consolidating the prose-pass and glossary pointers into a short 'Related skills' section so the navigation structure is explicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, listing only the review focus areas and concrete cross-references without explaining what bugs, performance, or security are; every line earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

It gives a concrete checklist of feedback areas plus specific cross-skill instructions ('read it as criteria; do not invoke it', exact glossary invocation syntax), but the core review categories like 'Code quality and best practices' remain high-level with no concrete method for surfacing or structuring findings.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

As a simple single-action skill (review code, report findings), the action is unambiguous and benefits from the simple-skill exception; however there is no explicit sequence or validation checkpoint, keeping it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The short body is well organized and points outward to one-level-deep references (CLAUDE.md, prose-pass/SKILL.md, glossary) that are clearly signaled with usage instructions, though the references are to other skills' files rather than dedicated bundle files, leaving minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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 is concise and identifies the right domain and natural trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit 'when to use' clause and offers only one generic action verb, limiting specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause stating when Claude should invoke this skill, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to review a PR, feature branch, or local code changes.'

Replace or augment the single generic verb 'review' with a couple of concrete actions (e.g. 'analyzes diffs and reports bugs, style, performance, and security issues').

Include the common synonym 'PR' alongside 'pull request' to broaden natural trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('review code') and lists review targets (pull request, feature branch, local changes), but the only action is the generic verb 'review' applied to those targets, so actions are minimal rather than multiple concrete capabilities.

2 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does (review code across PR/branch/local changes) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping completeness at 3 per the missing-trigger guidance.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases like 'review code', 'pull request', 'feature branch', and 'local changes' are present and well-aligned with what a user would say, though common synonyms like 'PR' and 'diff' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The review-specific framing plus concrete targets carve out a distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against general coding or prose skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Consensys-Incorporated/ocap-kernel
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.