CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

1k-code-review-pr

Review OneKey PRs and diffs for security, correctness, concurrency, React/RN pitfalls, and repository-specific regressions. Use for code review or 审查 PR.

64

Quality

78%

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 ./.skillshare/skills/1k-code-review-pr/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

An exceptionally actionable, well-sequenced review playbook with genuine validation loops and triage-driven reference loading. Its main weakness is redundancy: several rule sets are stated two or three times, inflating token cost without adding information.

Suggestions

Consolidate the confidence/cross-validation rules, currently stated in the Codex Cross-Review section, the Cross-Validation Rules subsection, and the Confidence Levels section, into the single Confidence Levels section and reference it from the others.

Merge the duplicate post-immediately instructions (Workflow step 10 and the GH CLI Inline Comments section) into one authoritative statement, dropping the conversational justification ("New conversations have no memory of a verbal '以后都自动发'...").

Reduce repeated MANDATORY emphasis (it appears in the workflow, Scoring System, Confidence Levels, Auto-Fix, and Priority Definitions sections) to a single upfront note that these output sections are mandatory in every report.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and free of known-concept padding (references even state "Claude already knows basic React"), but rules are restated: confidence/cross-validation rules appear in three sections, the post-immediately instruction is repeated across Workflow step 10 and the GH CLI section, and conversational filler like "this section is the source of truth" could be trimmed. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient, could be tightened) better than anchor 4's minor instances.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact diff commands ("git diff origin/x...HEAD"), gh api calls with --jq filters, a working bash import-hierarchy one-liner, precise P0-P2 and emoji-confidence tables, scoring anchors, and a complete copy-paste report template covering common cases. Matches anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A 10-step sequenced workflow with explicit validation feedback loops: Codex cross-validation merge rules, comment confirm/refute verdicts with evidence required for refutation, dedup with confidence promotion, mandatory report sections, and a checklist for qualifying inline comments. Matches anchor 5's explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Four real, one-level-deep reference files are well signaled (each with a purpose line in Reference Files) and a triage table maps changed-file patterns to which reference to load — strong load-on-demand. The ~380-line body still inlines substantial always-run detail (the ~80-line report template, the full PR-comment analysis framework), keeping it short of anchor 5's lean-overview fit.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 solid, domain-anchored description that clearly states what the skill does and gives bilingual trigger phrases. Its main gaps are a thin when-clause (only two triggers) and a generic "code review" trigger that overlaps with general review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Review OneKey PRs and diffs for security, correctness, concurrency, React/RN pitfalls, and repository-specific regressions" names the domain plus five concrete review dimensions. It stays at one verb with enumerated targets rather than the multiple distinct actions of anchor 5, but goes well beyond anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

It has a clear what (five named review dimensions for OneKey PRs/diffs) and an explicit "Use for..." clause, but the when is thin — only two trigger phrases versus anchor 5's concrete trigger phrases with synonyms. This is anchor 4's "'when' could be more explicit or specific" exactly.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use for code review or 审查 PR" supplies the primary natural phrases in both English and Chinese. Common variations like "review this PR", "diff review", or "PR review" are missing, matching anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5's synonym/extension coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OneKey", "React/RN pitfalls", and "repository-specific regressions" carve a distinct niche, but the trigger "code review" is generic and would also fire for a general code-review skill. This is minor overlap with closely related skills (anchor 4), not the minimal conflict risk of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
OneKeyHQ/app-monorepo
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.