code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security).
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description effectively communicates when to trigger (both explicit requests and autonomous use) and includes good natural keywords. However, it lacks specificity about what concrete review actions CodeRabbit performs, and the broad trigger terms could cause conflicts with other code-related skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions that CodeRabbit performs (e.g., 'Analyzes code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, style issues, and suggests improvements')
Narrow the autonomous trigger conditions to reduce conflict risk with other code analysis skills (e.g., specify 'pull request reviews' vs general 'code quality')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code review) and tool (CodeRabbit), but lacks specific concrete actions. Does not list what specific review capabilities exist (e.g., security analysis, style checking, bug detection). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit') and when ('Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed'). Has explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good natural trigger terms users would say: 'review', 'code', 'PR', 'quality', 'security'. These cover common variations of how users request code reviews. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While CodeRabbit is specific, terms like 'code', 'quality', and 'security' are broad and could overlap with other code analysis, linting, or security scanning skills. The 'Default code-review skill' designation helps but doesn't fully eliminate conflict risk. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The autonomous review-fix-verify loop is clearly documented with explicit checkpoints. Minor verbosity in the 'When to Use' section and some repeated security guidance slightly reduce token efficiency, but overall the skill provides clear, executable guidance.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly condense the 'When to Use' section - Claude can infer when code review is requested without explicit trigger phrases listed
Consolidate security notes into a single section rather than repeating guidance about untrusted content and secrets in multiple places
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but includes some redundancy - the 'When to Use' section lists obvious triggers Claude could infer, and some security notes are repeated across sections. The capabilities list and options table are appropriately concise. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable bash commands throughout, clear flag options in a table format, and specific copy-paste ready examples for different review scenarios. The prerequisite check commands are concrete and immediately usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints - check prerequisites, run review, present results, fix issues, re-run review. The autonomous workflow loop (step 4) includes explicit feedback loop: implement → review → fix → re-review until clean. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections progressing from prerequisites to basic usage to advanced scenarios. Links to external documentation for deeper details. Content is appropriately scoped for a single SKILL.md file without needing additional files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- Frenzyritz13/ritvifyi
- Commit
c56cea5
- 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.