Content
51%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-organized and token-efficient but shallow: it describes review categories and an abstract output format without a single concrete instruction, example, or sequenced workflow. Claude gets a topical checklist rather than actionable guidance on how to actually perform and report a review.
Suggestions
Add a worked example of the output format showing a short annotated snippet with findings labeled by severity (Critical/Major/Minor), so the abstract template becomes copy-paste-usable guidance.
Sequence the review into explicit steps (e.g., 1. Read the changed files and summarize purpose, 2. Check each focus area, 3. Report using the output format) with a checkpoint to re-verify any Critical finding before reporting it.
Trim known-knowledge padding such as the 'DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)' expansion and the 'You are an expert code reviewer' preamble, and replace generic bullets like 'Naming conventions' with a few specific tells to look for.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and list-based with no padded prose, but contains minor over-explanation of knowledge Claude already has: "DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle" spells out a universally known acronym, and "You are an expert code reviewer. When this skill is activated, you should:" is role-play filler. This matches anchor 4 (efficient with minor instances that could be trimmed); not 5 because those tokens do not earn their place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | There is no executable guidance anywhere: no commands, no code, no worked example, and the output format is abstract direction ("Issues Found: List of problems categorized by severity (Critical, Major, Minor)") rather than a concrete template. It sits above anchor 1 because the severity tiers and output sections give some concrete shape, but below anchor 3 since there is nothing Claude could directly execute or pattern-match against. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The body provides no sequence for conducting a review (e.g., locate the code, analyze each focus area, then report); it only lists parallel focus areas and an output format. This matches anchor 2 (rough implied order via the output format, but steps are poorly defined and validation/checkpoints absent); not 1 because the output format does imply a coherent report ordering. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, has no bundle files, and nothing that belongs in a separate reference file; sections ("Review Focus Areas", "Review Output Format", "Usage") are well-organized and easy to navigate. Per the simple-skill guideline, this earns a 5 with just well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |