code-review-excellence

Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agent/skills/code-review-excellence/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%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 body is concise and well-structured with actionable instruction-style guidance, but it presents a flat rather than sequenced workflow and points to bundle files that do not exist, weakening navigation. Fixing the broken/inconsistent references and adding a sequenced review workflow would raise the score.

Suggestions

Resolve the inconsistent bundle references: the body cites both 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' and './sub-skills/implementation-playbook.md' but neither file exists — pick one path and create the referenced file, or remove the references.

Convert the flat Instructions bullet list into a numbered, sequenced review workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Verify findings against tests before reporting severity').

Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready artifact (a review checklist template or a severity-tagged example comment) to push actionability toward fully executable guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section ('Use this skill when', 'Instructions', 'Output Format') earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and specific ('Read context, requirements, and test signals first', 'Provide actionable feedback with severity and rationale', 'Issues grouped by severity (blocking, important, minor)') but, being instruction-only, lacks executable code or commands, leaving minor gaps versus the copy-paste-ready 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Instructions are a flat unordered list rather than a clearly sequenced workflow, and there are no explicit validation checkpoints; the sequence is present but implicit, matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is reasonable, but the body references 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' and './sub-skills/implementation-playbook.md' while no such bundle files exist (two inconsistent, unverifiable paths), so references are present but not clearly signaled or reliable.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 strong: it conveys concrete capabilities, natural trigger terms, an explicit Use-when clause, and a distinct code-review niche. It sits just below top marks only because its action and keyword coverage could be marginally more comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the code-review domain and lists several concrete actions ('provide constructive feedback', 'catch bugs early', 'foster knowledge sharing', 'maintaining team morale'), with only minor coverage gaps, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than the fully comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly states what the skill does ('provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing') and gives a concrete 'Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers' clause, satisfying the 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when' anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user-facing terms like 'code review', 'pull requests', 'reviewing pull requests', 'establishing review standards', and 'mentoring developers' are present, with only a few synonymous phrases missing, fitting the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The code-review niche and its triggers are mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general development skills, matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than the unambiguously minimal-conflict 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Dokhacgiakhoa/Agent-Skills-4-Vibe-Coding-CLI
Path: .agent/skills/code-review-excellence/SKILL.md
Commit: c4a059b

Reviewed: 1 hour ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.