CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

receiving-code-review

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

48

Quality

51%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is receiving-code-review in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 body delivers concrete, actionable behavioral guidance for receiving code review, with a clear sequenced workflow, validation checkpoints, and copy-paste response templates. Its main weakness is redundancy: the no-gratitude/no-performative-agreement rule is repeated across many sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated anti-gratitude guidance into one section (Forbidden Responses / Acknowledging Correct Feedback) and reference it from elsewhere instead of restating it five times.

Specify how to test each fix in the Implementation Order (e.g. 'run the affected test file / re-run the failing check') to close the workflow validation gap.

Move the Real Examples and Common Mistakes table into a reference file (e.g. references/examples.md) to reduce the main SKILL.md footprint and improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is directive and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the anti-gratitude / no-performative-agreement rule is restated across the Overview, Forbidden Responses, Acknowledging Correct Feedback, Common Mistakes, Real Examples, and Bottom Line sections, which is noticeable padding that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete forbidden phrases, exact replacement templates, copy-paste response examples, and a real `gh api .../replies` command give mostly executable guidance; minor gaps come from abstract WHEN/IF decision-flow blocks that are pseudocode-like (justified for a behavioral skill).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Response Pattern (READ→IMPLEMENT) and Implementation Order (clarify → blocking → simple → complex → test each → verify no regressions) provide explicit validation checkpoints, with a correction feedback loop and a Common Mistakes checklist; minor gaps in how to actually test each fix keep it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md is well-organized into clearly headed sections with no external bundle files needed; at ~210 lines with some cross-section redundancy it sits at 'good structure, minor organization gaps' rather than the lean 5-anchor case.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

36%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 is a terse principle statement that names the code-review domain but provides no concrete actions, no use-when trigger guidance, and no clear distinction from giving code review. It reads as a stance rather than a capability description.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions, e.g. 'Evaluates code review feedback against the codebase, verifies correctness, and responds with technical reasoning or reasoned pushback.'

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when receiving code review feedback, PR comments, or review requests from a human partner or external reviewer.'

Distinguish reception from giving review, e.g. 'For receiving (not authoring) code review feedback.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Code review") but states an abstract principle ("technical evaluation, not emotional performance") rather than any concrete actions; closest to the score-2 anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic.'

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is vague (an attitude rather than a capability) and there is no 'when'/'Use when' trigger clause at all, fitting the score-2 anchor of a vague 'what' and no 'when'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"code review" is a natural phrase a user would say, but the description omits common synonyms/variations such as "feedback", "review comments", or "PR review", matching the score-3 anchor of relevant keywords missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Code review" is a recognizable niche, but the phrasing does not distinguish receiving review from giving review, leaving overlap risk with related code-review skills; matches the score-3 anchor 'somewhat specific but could still overlap.'

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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
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.