typescript-style-review

Reviews TypeScript code against the Google TS Style Guide.

Quality

53%

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 ./configs/skills/typescript_style_review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 a clean, well-sectioned instruction set for a read-only review task with a useful comment template, but it repeats its purpose across the Executive Summary and Guidelines, lacks worked example violations, and provides no validation/feedback guidance for borderline cases. It is solidly mid-pack and would improve with a concrete example and tighter intro.

Suggestions

Collapse the Executive Summary into the Guidelines section to remove the restated purpose and tighten conciseness.

Add one fully worked example violation (Problem / Suggestion with code snippet / Reference to a specific style-guide section) to lift actionability.

Add a short "If unsure whether a rule applies" checkpoint or note on handling borderline/ambiguous cases to strengthen workflow clarity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient but the Executive Summary ("This guide serves as the instruction set... The goal is to ensure that all TypeScript code adheres to the official Google TypeScript Style Guide") restates the same idea as the Guidelines section, so it could be tightened; not a 4 because the repetition is a clear instance of over-explanation, not just a minor trim.	3 / 5
Actionability	The Review Instructions give a concrete output template (Problem/Suggestion/Reference) and specify what each violation comment must contain, but there are no example violations or sample comments illustrating the format, leaving the guidance incomplete; not a 4 because concrete worked examples are missing, and not a 2 because the template is genuinely executable.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A numbered sequence is present (identify violations → explain/suggest/reference each → format via template), but checkpoints are only implicit and there is no feedback loop for ambiguous or borderline cases; this is a read-only review skill so the destructive-cap does not apply, but it still sits at the "steps listed, checkpoints implicit" anchor rather than a 4.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files, well-organized into clear sections (Executive Summary, Guidelines, Reference, Review Instructions) and a single one-level external reference (the style guide URL), giving good structure; not a 5 because the Reference section is a bare URL rather than a clearly signaled navigational pointer to sub-topics.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 clear and appropriately third-person but stops at stating what the skill does without any "Use when..." trigger guidance, which caps its completeness and limits trigger-term quality. It is reasonably distinctive but would benefit from explicit activation phrases.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when..." clause naming natural triggers, e.g. "Use when reviewing TypeScript code, checking adherence to the Google TypeScript Style Guide, or linting .ts files for style violations."

Include synonyms and file extensions users actually say ("TypeScript", ".ts", "style guide", "lint", "code review") to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten the action list to concrete verbs (e.g. "Reviews TypeScript code for Google TS Style Guide violations and produces structured findings") to lift specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Reviews TypeScript code against the Google TS Style Guide" names the domain and one concrete action (reviewing against a specific style guide), matching the anchor that lists 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; not a 2 because the action is more specific than a bare "Processes PDF files", and not a 4 because only a single action is named.	3 / 5
Completeness	The description gives a clear "what" but no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the judging guideline completeness is capped at 3; not a 4 because "when" is entirely absent rather than weakly present.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like "TypeScript code", "Google TS Style Guide", and "Reviews" are relevant but the description omits natural trigger phrasings and synonyms (e.g. "lint", "style check", ".ts"), matching the anchor with some relevant keywords missing common variations; not a 4 because coverage of natural user phrasings is thin.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoping to "TypeScript code" and the specific "Google TS Style Guide" carves a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic code-review skills; not a 5 because no explicit trigger phrases reinforce the distinction, and not a 3 because the scope is clearly bounded.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: GerritCodeReview/gerrit
Path: configs/skills/typescript_style_review/SKILL.md
Commit: 49c7e7c

Reviewed: 4 days 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.