CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-local-changes

Review your local uncommitted working-tree changes (git diff plus untracked files) and return actionable improvement suggestions. Use before committing, when nothing has been pushed yet.

65

Quality

79%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/review/skills/review-local-changes/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced review workflow with excellent concrete guidance and templates. Its main weaknesses are repeated filter/impact-mapping explanations and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure into reference files.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the impact-level mapping and consolidate the three filter explanations ('IMPORTANT: Do NOT report', 'Filter application order', 'Concrete example') into a single authoritative filter section.

Extract the JSON output template and the detailed confidence/impact scoring rubrics into a references/ file (e.g. SCORING.md and OUTPUT-TEMPLATE.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Add an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop for the batch review phase (e.g. re-score after an agent revises a flagged issue) to strengthen workflow validation for a multi-agent batch operation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and justified by a complex multi-phase workflow, but the impact-level mapping is duplicated and the filter logic is re-explained across three sections ('IMPORTANT: Do NOT report', 'Filter application order', 'Concrete example'), which could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready git commands, an exact agent prompt block, numeric confidence/impact rubrics, and complete markdown and JSON output templates with worked examples, fully covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Three phases are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation gate in Phase 3 (progressive confidence thresholds and a 'do not proceed' cutoff), though the batch multi-agent operation lacks an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized with clear section headers, but at ~340 lines it is a single monolithic file with no bundle references, inlining content (JSON template, detailed scoring rubrics, agent descriptions) that could live in separate reference files.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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.

A strong, third-person description that clearly states both the capability and the pre-commit usage trigger with concrete, natural terminology. Minor room to add synonyms like 'staged changes' for broader trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('local uncommitted working-tree changes') and concrete mechanisms ('git diff plus untracked files', 'return actionable improvement suggestions'), giving several specific actions with only minor abstraction in 'improvement suggestions'.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Review your local uncommitted working-tree changes ... and return actionable improvement suggestions') and when ('Use before committing, when nothing has been pushed yet') with a concrete trigger clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present ('local uncommitted working-tree changes', 'git diff', 'before committing', 'nothing has been pushed yet'), with good coverage though a few synonyms like 'staged changes' are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to a clear niche (pre-commit, uncommitted, unpushed local changes) with distinct triggers, giving it minimal overlap with general PR/diff code-review skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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
NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
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.