CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

github-pr-review-fix

Review and resolve PR comments from GitHub. Validates each comment, fixes legitimate issues.

57

Quality

66%

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/github-pr-review-fix/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable, with executable gh/GraphQL commands and a concrete sub-agent template organized into a clear five-step workflow. Its weaknesses are repetition in the reply/resolve blocks, the absence of a fix-verification checkpoint in a batch editing workflow, and large inline blocks that could be split into reference files.

Suggestions

Factor the repeated agentic-reply message and resolveReviewThread blocks into a single parameterized template to remove triplicate duplication.

Add a verification checkpoint after sub-agent fixes (e.g., run tests / re-read the changed region) before resolving threads on GitHub.

Move the sub-agent prompt template and GraphQL queries into reference files (e.g. references/subagent-prompt.md, references/graphql-queries.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and actionable, but the GraphQL resolveReviewThread query and the three near-identical agentic-reply message blocks (FIX/IGNORE/NEEDS_MANUAL_REVIEW) are repeated verbatim and could be factored into a shared template. It is not 3 because of this repetition and the long inline sub-agent prompt, and not 1 because it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and stays instruction-focused.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides fully executable `gh pr view`, `gh api`, and `gh api graphql` commands, a concrete copy-paste sub-agent prompt template, and a precise report table format. It is not 2 because the guidance is complete and executable rather than pseudocode or abstract direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The five steps are clearly sequenced with conflict-avoidance guidance, but this batch operation (parallel sub-agents editing files) lacks a verification checkpoint confirming fixes are correct or safe before resolving threads. Per the guidelines, missing validation in batch/destructive workflows caps this at 2. It is not 1 because the sequence and per-thread handling are explicit, and not 3 because no validate-fix-then-verify loop is present.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single well-sectioned file with no nested references, but at over 200 lines the large inline sub-agent prompt template and GraphQL query blocks are content that could reasonably be split into reference files. It is not 3 because the simple-skill exception does not apply and substantial inline blocks could be externalized, and not 1 because organization into labeled steps is clear with no deep reference nesting.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 specific and distinctive, naming concrete review/validate/fix actions for GitHub PR comments. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and limited coverage of natural trigger phrasings, which caps completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to address, resolve, or fix GitHub PR/pull request review comments."

Broaden trigger terms to include natural variations like "pull request", "code review comments", and "review feedback".

Keep the concrete action list but pair it with the when-guidance to satisfy both the what and when requirements.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Review and resolve PR comments", "Validates each comment", "fixes legitimate issues" — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions. It is not the level below (2) because it goes beyond naming a single domain action to enumerate review, validation, and fixing.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" (review/validate/fix PR comments) but provides no explicit "when" / "Use when..." trigger guidance, which the guidelines cap at 2. It is not 3 because there is no explicit trigger clause, and not 1 because the "what" is clearly stated.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant natural terms like "PR comments" and "GitHub" a user might say, but misses common variations such as "pull request", "code review", or "review comments". It is not 3 because coverage of natural trigger phrasings is incomplete, and not 1 because it does use user-facing terms rather than pure jargon.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Review and resolve PR comments from GitHub" carves a clear niche focused on GitHub PR review-comment resolution, unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills. It is not 2 because the scope (GitHub PR comments, validation + fixing) is specific rather than broadly overlapping.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
IvanMurzak/Unity-MCP
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.