code-review-checklist

Comprehensive checklist for conducting thorough code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, and maintainability

0.98x

Quality

30%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

0.98x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

27%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is an extremely verbose code review checklist that repeats the same information multiple times across different sections (steps, examples, complete checklist, common pitfalls). It explains many concepts Claude already knows well and provides little novel or project-specific guidance. While the good/bad code examples add some value, the overall content would be far more effective at 20-30% of its current length with detailed checklists split into separate referenced files.

Suggestions

Reduce content by 70-80%: remove the 'When to Use' section, 'Common Pitfalls', 'Review Comment Templates', and 'Best Practices' do/don't lists—Claude already knows these. Keep only the consolidated checklist and a few key code examples.

Eliminate redundancy: the review dimensions (functionality, security, performance, etc.) appear three times—in Steps, Examples, and Complete Review Checklist. Consolidate into a single authoritative checklist.

Split detailed per-category checklists (security, performance, code quality) into separate referenced files (e.g., SECURITY_REVIEW.md, PERFORMANCE_REVIEW.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with links.

Add validation/decision criteria: specify when to approve vs request changes (e.g., 'any security issue = block, style issues = optional suggestion') to create a real workflow with checkpoints.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~350+ lines. Explains concepts Claude already knows well (what code review is, what edge cases are, what SQL injection is). Massive redundancy: the checklist items are repeated across Step sections, Example sections, and the Complete Review Checklist. The 'When to Use This Skill' section, 'Best Practices' do/don't lists, 'Common Pitfalls', and 'Review Comment Templates' all add bulk with minimal novel information for Claude.	1 / 3
Actionability	The code examples showing good vs bad patterns are concrete and executable, which is helpful. However, the skill is fundamentally a checklist of questions/bullet points rather than executable guidance—it tells Claude to 'check if inputs are validated' without providing specific tools, commands, or automated approaches to actually perform the review. It's more of a reference document than actionable instructions.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-6 provide a reasonable sequence for conducting a review, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. There's no guidance on what to do when issues are found (beyond generic 'request changes'), no prioritization of findings, and no clear decision criteria for approve vs request changes. The workflow is more of a topic list than a true process.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no content split into separate files. The detailed checklists for functionality, security, and code quality could each be separate referenced documents. The 'Related Skills' and 'Additional Resources' sections reference external links but the core content is all inline, making this extremely long and poorly organized for progressive consumption.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

32%Scale 1-3

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 identifies its domain (code reviews) and lists high-level coverage areas, but reads more like a document title than a skill description. It lacks concrete actions, explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), and natural keyword variations that would help Claude reliably select it from a large skill set.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to review code, check a pull request, or wants a code quality assessment.'

Replace the high-level category list with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Checks for security vulnerabilities, identifies performance bottlenecks, flags error handling gaps, and verifies test coverage.'

Include natural trigger term variations like 'PR review', 'pull request', 'review my code', 'code quality check', 'code audit'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (code reviews) and lists categories (functionality, security, performance, maintainability), but doesn't describe concrete actions like 'check for SQL injection', 'verify error handling', or 'flag N+1 queries'. The categories are high-level rather than specific actions.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it is (a checklist for code reviews) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' portion is also weak (it's a noun phrase describing a checklist rather than actions), so this scores a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes 'code review' which is a natural trigger term users would say, plus related terms like 'security', 'performance', and 'maintainability'. However, it misses common variations like 'PR review', 'pull request', 'review checklist', 'code quality', or 'review my code'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'code review checklist' framing is somewhat specific, but could overlap with general coding assistance skills, security audit skills, or performance optimization skills. The broad categories (security, performance, maintainability) each could conflict with more specialized skills in those areas.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md
Commit: fbdfd63

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.