code-review
How to review code; a pull request, feature branch, local changes etc.
50
22%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.14xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
22%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 too vague about what concrete actions the skill performs during code review and lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. While it mentions useful contexts (pull requests, feature branches, local changes), it doesn't describe specific capabilities or provide clear trigger guidance for skill selection.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes code diffs for bugs, style issues, and logic errors; suggests improvements; summarizes changes.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to review a PR, check a diff, inspect branch changes, or provide feedback on code.'
Include common trigger term variations like 'PR', 'code review', 'diff', 'merge request', 'CR' to improve keyword coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description says 'how to review code' which is vague. It lists contexts (pull request, feature branch, local changes) but does not describe concrete actions like 'check for bugs', 'suggest improvements', 'analyze diffs', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description partially addresses 'what' (review code) but is vague about specific actions. There is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the weak 'what' brings it down to 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some natural keywords users might say like 'pull request', 'feature branch', 'local changes', and 'review code', but misses common variations like 'PR', 'code review', 'diff', 'merge request', or 'changes'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'pull request', 'feature branch', and 'local changes' provides some specificity to code review, but 'review code' is broad enough to potentially overlap with linting, testing, or general coding assistance skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
22%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is too vague and abstract to be useful. It lists generic code review concerns that Claude already knows without providing concrete workflows, example review formats, specific tool commands (e.g., gh pr diff), or actionable templates. It reads more like a reminder checklist than an instructional skill.
Suggestions
Add a concrete workflow with steps: e.g., 1) Fetch the diff using `gh pr diff` or `git diff`, 2) Review each file for the listed concerns, 3) Format feedback as inline comments with specific line references.
Include an example of a good review comment showing the expected format and level of detail (e.g., a before/after code snippet with explanation).
Remove generic advice Claude already knows ('Be constructive and helpful', 'Code quality and best practices') and replace with project-specific or non-obvious guidance.
Add specific commands for different review contexts (GitHub PR vs local branch vs staged changes) so Claude knows exactly which tools to use.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Reasonably brief but includes some generic advice ('Be constructive and helpful') that Claude already knows. The bullet list of review areas (code quality, bugs, performance, security, tests) is standard knowledge for any code reviewer and doesn't add much value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides only vague, abstract direction ('provide feedback on code quality and best practices') with no concrete examples of what good feedback looks like, no specific commands for fetching PRs or diffs, no example review comment format, and no executable guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no sequenced workflow at all — no steps for how to actually perform a code review (e.g., fetch the diff, read the changes, check tests, post comments). It's just a list of topics to consider with no ordering or validation checkpoints. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references CLAUDE.md for style guidance and mentions invoking the glossary skill, which shows some awareness of external resources. However, there are no structured sections, no clear navigation, and the content is a flat list rather than a well-organized overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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
- MetaMask/ocap-kernel
- Commit
052f4d4
- 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.