CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

common-code-review

Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.

59

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

61%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 skill body is well-structured and gives actionable output formatting plus a mandatory checklist, with good progressive disclosure into reference files. Its weak spots are redundancy across four overlapping guardrail sections and the absence of an explicitly sequenced review workflow with validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Collapse Review Principles, Red Flags, Rationalization Prevention, and Anti-Patterns into a single section to remove redundancy and recover token budget.

Add a short numbered review workflow (e.g., 1. read diff/context, 2. run the checklist, 3. classify findings by severity, 4. emit Why/Fix output) with explicit checkpoints.

Link the remaining bundle files (lenses.md, report.md, request-template.md) from the References section so all progressive-disclosure targets are reachable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean bullet prose with no over-explanation of known concepts, but Review Principles, Red Flags, Rationalization Prevention, and Anti-Patterns substantially restate one another (e.g., 'Substance > Style' / 'No Nitpicking'), which is more than minor padding and could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete, copy-paste-ready output scaffolding ('[SEVERITY] [File] ... Why: ... Fix: ...'), severity buckets, and a mandatory checklist; as an instruction-only skill this is actionable with only minor gaps versus full worked examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

There is a checklist and 'Stop if' red-flag self-checks, but no explicit sequenced review workflow with checkpoints; the checklist is an unordered area list rather than a sequence, fitting 'steps listed but validation gaps / checkpoints implicit'.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to references/checklist.md and references/output-format.md, but bundle files lenses.md, report.md, and request-template.md are present yet never linked, a minor organization gap that keeps it below 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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 cleanly states what the skill does and when to use it with natural trigger phrases, scoring well on completeness and trigger quality. Its main weakness is specificity, as the listed actions are generic restatements of 'review code' rather than sharply distinct capabilities.

Suggestions

Replace generic action verbs with distinct concrete capabilities (e.g., 'identifies blockers and security flaws, verifies test coverage of edge cases, proposes fix sketches') to lift specificity.

Add a couple of natural synonyms users might say ('code review', 'PR feedback', 'diff critique') to round out trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ('code reviews') and a few actions ('reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, analyzing changes'), but these are generic reformulations of the same activity rather than distinct concrete actions, matching the anchor that lists 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews') and 'when' ('Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases ('reviewing PRs', 'critiquing code quality', 'analyzing changes') give good keyword coverage with only minor synonyms missing, fitting the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Code review is a mostly distinct niche, but common trigger words ('review', 'analyze code') carry minor overlap risk with closely related skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the minimal-conflict 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard
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.