CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review

Brutally honest code review assessing security, reliability, performance, and taste

52

Quality

56%

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 ./.opencode/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%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 is well-structured and actionable with a clear subagent-based workflow and concrete output template. Its main weaknesses are redundant duplication of the dispatch list and criteria, and the absence of a validation step before aggregating subagent findings.

Suggestions

Consolidate the duplicated subagent dispatch lists and criteria (Execution Strategy/Review Process and Review Criteria/Subagent Review Criteria) into a single authoritative section to cut tokens.

Add a validation checkpoint after subagents return, e.g. verify each finding has location/severity/category before aggregating, and re-dispatch any pass that returned no findings rather than silently proceeding.

Fill the <FOCUS AREA> and <criteria> placeholders in the prompt template with one worked example per pass so the template is copy-paste ready.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and well-sectioned, but it repeats the subagent dispatch list and review criteria twice (Execution Strategy vs. Review Process, and Review Criteria vs. Subagent Review Criteria), which is padding that could be consolidated.

3 / 5

Actionability

It provides a concrete subagent prompt template, structured finding fields, and an explicit report format with location/severity/category tags; the only gap is that the subagent template uses placeholders like <FOCUS AREA> rather than fully filled examples per pass.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process (identify scope, gather context, dispatch in parallel, aggregate, write report) is clearly sequenced, but this is a batch aggregation operation with no validation checkpoint confirming subagent output completeness or schema before aggregation.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

For a sub-50-line-equivalent single-purpose review skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (criteria, principles, output format, process); no external references are needed and navigation is straightforward.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

51%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 specific about what dimensions the review covers but omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which is the most significant gap. Trigger-term coverage is moderate, centered on 'code review' without synonyms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks for a code review, wants code audited for bugs or security issues, or needs feedback on code quality before merging.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users actually say ('review my code', 'audit this code', 'find bugs', 'code quality check').

Mention the concrete output action (writes a report an implementer can act on) to round out the 'what' coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names four concrete review dimensions ('security, reliability, performance, and taste') rather than vague language, but does not enumerate the concrete actions it performs (find, aggregate, report), leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

It states a clear 'what' (brutally honest review across four areas) but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness per the guidelines.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'code review' is the core natural trigger phrase, and 'security, reliability, performance' are plausible search terms, but it lacks common synonyms like 'review my code', 'audit', 'find bugs', or 'code quality'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Brutally honest code review' carves a fairly distinct niche and is unlikely to trigger for non-review skills, with only minor overlap risk against general coding or refactoring skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
LibPDF-js/core
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.