code-review-checklist

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

0.98x

Quality

50%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

0.98x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is code-review-checklist in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Quality

Content

50%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.

The content is well-structured and actionable with useful examples and templates, but it is a verbose monolith that re-explains basic concepts and duplicates material across sections, and it lacks any progressive disclosure into separate reference files.

Suggestions

Trim the bad/good code examples and redundancy across "How It Works", "Examples", and "Complete Review Checklist" to assume Claude's existing knowledge of security and code-quality basics.

Move the long example checklists and review comment templates into separate reference files (e.g. references/checklists.md, references/templates.md) and link to them from a concise overview.

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the review workflow (e.g. "After running tests, verify CI passes before approving") to strengthen the feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	At ~440 lines the body is noticeably verbose: it explains basic concepts Claude already knows (input validation, parameterized queries, descriptive naming) via bad/good code blocks, and the "How It Works", "Examples", "Best Practices", "Complete Review Checklist", and "Common Pitfalls" sections overlap heavily, creating substantial padding.	2 / 5
Actionability	It supplies concrete bad/good code examples per category, copy-paste-ready review comment templates, and a complete checkbox checklist, giving mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The six-step "How It Works" sequence (context, functionality, code quality, security, performance, tests) is clear, but validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit (no "verify/validate before proceeding" steps), matching the anchor for steps present with missing checkpoints.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	There are no bundle files; everything is inlined in one large SKILL.md. Section headers provide real structure, but large blocks (example checklists with code, templates) that could live in separate reference files are inlined and no one-level-deep references are signaled.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

50%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.

The description clearly states what the skill is but omits any explicit trigger/"when to use" guidance, which caps completeness. It is reasonably specific and distinct but lacks the natural trigger-term coverage and "Use when" phrasing of a top-tier description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code audits, or establishing team review standards".

Include common natural trigger terms users say ("pull request", "PR", "review this code") to improve trigger matching.

Lead with concrete actions (e.g. "Walks through functionality, security, performance, and maintainability checks during code review") rather than the abstract "Comprehensive checklist for conducting...".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain ("conducting thorough code reviews") and enumerates four concrete coverage areas (functionality, security, performance, maintainability), going beyond a single minimal action, though it stops short of listing concrete review actions like the anchor-5 examples.	3 / 5
Completeness	The description gives a clear "what" (a comprehensive checklist for code reviews covering four areas) but provides no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The natural phrase "code reviews" is present, but common variations users would actually say ("pull request", "PR", "review my code") are missing, matching the anchor for some relevant keywords with absent synonyms.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Code review checklist" is a recognizable niche, but the phrase is broad enough to overlap with other review/audit skills (including a built-in code-review skill), fitting the "somewhat specific but could still overlap" anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

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.