CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review

Review changed code for correctness, security, code quality, and performance. Use when the user asks to review code changes, a PR, or specific files. Invoke with `/review`, `/review <pr-number>`, `/review <file-path>`, `/review <pr-number> --comment` to post inline comments on the PR, `/review --fix` to apply the findings to your working tree, or `/review <pr-number> --resume` to continue an interrupted review of that PR instead of starting over. Add `--effort low|medium|high` to trade depth for speed (defaults to high for PRs, medium for local changes). Add `--topology minimal` to run the single-pass A/B comparison arm instead of the pipeline.

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

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/core/src/skills/bundled/review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

66%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 orchestration skill with clear validation gates and sensibly gated one-level references. Its chief weakness is conciseness: heavy inline incident-narration and rationale asides inflate the body well past what execution requires.

Suggestions

Move the recurring '(measured; DESIGN.md — ...)' incident narrations and dated anecdote asides out of the body — they justify rules for maintainers but cost tokens on every review run; a one-line rule statement is enough.

Extract the long flag/verdict-field reference prose (Step 1's per-field explanations) into references/ so the main body is an overview pointing to detail, improving both conciseness and progressive_disclosure.

Tighten the critical-rules block at the top into terse imperatives; the current paragraphs mix rule, rationale, and recovery advice, which a senior reviewer can be trusted to apply from a shorter statement.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

At 1193 lines the body is noticeably verbose, threaded with inline incident narrations ('measured; DESIGN.md — The transcribed argument file', 'Measured on 2026-08-02: a round against #8368...') and lengthy rationale asides that pad rather than instruct, matching the 'several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' anchor.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable CLI commands ('"${QWEN_CODE_CLI:-qwen}" review parse-args --stdin ...') and explicit JSON field formats across many code fences, with only minor gaps where placeholders like <worktreePath> must be filled in.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Step 1–9 pipeline with explicit validation checkpoints (Step 4 verify, Step 5 reverse audit), feedback loops ('If errors: fix and re-validate'), and deterministic gates ('Only proceed when validation passes').

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References to posting.md, persistence.md, and aone.md are one level deep, real, and gated with clear load conditions ('Load it when, and only when, posting is live'), but the 1193-line main body inlines substantial content that keeps it just short of the ideal overview structure.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 concretely states capabilities and gives explicit, natural-language trigger guidance plus invocation syntax. Minor synonym coverage gaps keep trigger_term_quality just below the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete review actions — 'correctness, security, code quality, and performance' — plus specific operations like posting inline comments, applying findings to the working tree, and resuming interrupted reviews, giving comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Review changed code for correctness, security, code quality, and performance') and when ('Use when the user asks to review code changes, a PR, or specific files') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keywords ('review code changes, a PR, or specific files') plus the `/review` invocation forms; a few common synonyms like 'diff' or 'pull request' are absent, so it falls just short of the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche — reviewing code changes/PRs with specific invocation flags — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk against unrelated skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1194 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
QwenLM/qwen-code
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.