coderabbit-fix-flow

Name: coderabbit-fix-flow
Rating: 66 (1 reviews)
Author: alchemiststudiosDOTai

tessl i github:alchemiststudiosDOTai/coderabbit-fix-flow-plugin --skill coderabbit-fix-flow

github.com/alchemiststudiosDOTai/coderabbit-fix-flow-plugin

This skill should be used when CodeRabbit code review feedback needs to be processed and fixed systematically. Use after running `coderabbit --plain` to automatically save feedback, analyze issues using MCP tools, and implement minimal code fixes with proper planning.

Review Score

66%

Validation Score

13/16

Implementation Score

50%

Activation Score

75%

SKILL.md

Review

Evals

Generated

4 days ago

Warnings & errors only

Criteria	Score
description_trigger_hint	Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...')
metadata_version	'metadata' field is not a dictionary
license_field	'license' field is missing

Overall Assessment

This skill provides a reasonable workflow structure for processing CodeRabbit feedback but lacks the concrete, executable guidance needed for full actionability. The MCP tool usage sections describe what to do conceptually but don't show actual tool invocation syntax. Validation steps exist but lack explicit feedback loops for error recovery.

Suggestions

Add concrete MCP tool invocation examples showing actual parameters and expected responses (e.g., `mcp_sequential_thinking({thought: '...', nextThoughtNeeded: true})`)
Add explicit feedback loop after Step 5: 'If validation fails in Step 6, return to Step 3 to re-analyze the failing fix'
Remove or condense the 'Overview' and 'When to Use' sections - Claude can infer this from the workflow itself
Move 'Issue Type Patterns' to a separate PATTERNS.md file and reference it, keeping only the most critical pattern inline

Dimension	Score	Reasoning
Conciseness	2/3	The skill contains some unnecessary explanation (e.g., 'This skill automates the workflow...' overview, 'When to Use' section explaining obvious context). The workflow steps are reasonably efficient but could be tightened.
Actionability	2/3	Provides some concrete examples (TypeScript/Python fix patterns, bash command) but lacks executable MCP tool invocation syntax. Steps like 'Use the sequential thinking MCP tool' are vague without showing actual tool calls or parameters.
Workflow Clarity	2/3	Steps are clearly sequenced (1-6) with logical flow, but validation is mentioned only at the end without explicit feedback loops. Missing checkpoint for verifying fixes before moving to next issue, and no error recovery guidance if validation fails.
Progressive Disclosure	2/3	Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but the 'Issue Type Patterns' section could be split to a separate reference file. The skill is somewhat long (~150 lines) with inline content that could benefit from external references for patterns and examples.

Overall Assessment

This description effectively communicates when to use the skill with explicit trigger conditions and a specific tool context (CodeRabbit). However, it could be more specific about the concrete actions performed and include more natural keyword variations that users might use when requesting help with code review feedback.

Suggestions

Add more specific concrete actions like 'categorize review comments by severity', 'generate fix patches', or 'create PR update summaries'
Include additional natural trigger terms users might say such as 'CR comments', 'review suggestions', 'code review fixes', or 'address feedback'

Dimension	Score	Reasoning
Specificity	2/3	Names the domain (CodeRabbit code review) and some actions ('process feedback', 'analyze issues', 'implement fixes'), but lacks specific concrete actions like what types of fixes or how analysis works.
Completeness	3/3	Clearly answers both what ('process and fix CodeRabbit feedback, analyze issues using MCP tools, implement minimal code fixes') and when ('after running coderabbit --plain', 'when CodeRabbit feedback needs to be processed').
Trigger Term Quality	2/3	Includes relevant terms like 'CodeRabbit', 'code review', 'feedback', and the command 'coderabbit --plain', but misses common variations users might say like 'CR feedback', 'review comments', or 'fix suggestions'.
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	3/3	Very specific niche targeting CodeRabbit tool integration with distinct trigger of 'coderabbit --plain' command; unlikely to conflict with generic code review or linting skills.