CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

code-reviewer

Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.

64

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

A well-organized, token-efficient skill body with genuinely executable commands and concrete thresholds, undermined by bundle-integrity failures: the 'Loading order for every review' mandates two files ('rules/universal.md', 'languages/*.md') that are not shipped, and the regression-fixture validation step depends on a missing 'expected_outputs/' directory. The design of the disclosure structure is strong, but as delivered the primary navigation paths are broken.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced 'rules/universal.md' and 13 'languages/*.md' files (or remove the loading-order section and inline the universal rules) — the mandated workflow currently directs the agent to files that do not exist in the bundle.

Commit the 'expected_outputs/*.json' files the regression-fixture section depends on, or drop the section — the documented diff command fails as shipped since only the 'assets/' fixtures exist.

Collapse the duplication between the directory tree (which enumerates all 13 language files) and the extension dispatch table — one listing of the same mapping is enough.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and functional — command examples, threshold and verdict tables, and dispatch rules with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable redundancy: the 'How This Skill Is Organized' tree lists all 13 'languages/*.md' files individually, then the extension dispatch table repeats the same mapping, and 'That is always exactly 2 additional files' restates the loading order.

4 / 5

Actionability

Commands are concrete and verified executable against the bundled scripts (e.g. 'python scripts/pr_analyzer.py . --base main --head feature-branch', '--pr-analysis pr_results.json', all matching real argparse flags), and 'Adding a New Language' cites real symbols ('LANGUAGE_EXTENSIONS', 'check_<name>_specific_smells(...)'). The gap is more than cosmetic but confined: the mandated loading of 'rules/universal.md' and a 'languages/*.md' file cannot be executed because neither directory ships with the bundle, leaving the promised 'Language-specific detections' and 'Language-specific checks' undefined.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'Loading order for every review' is an explicit 1-2-3 sequence with a dispatch table, the verdict table defines decision criteria, and the regression-fixture section provides a verification loop ('Drift from the committed JSON signals a behaviour change'). Not 5 because that verification loop references a nonexistent 'expected_outputs/' directory, so the checkpoint cannot actually run as written.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The hub-and-spoke design is structurally excellent — SKILL.md as dispatch table pointing one level deep to 'rules/universal.md' and 'languages/*.md', clearly signaled by extension — but scoring against the actual bundle, every one of those 15 referenced rule files is absent, so the core progressive-disclosure structure delivers nothing. Not 4 because 'references mostly clear' with only 'minor organization gaps' understates broken references on the primary loading path; not 2 because the inline content that does exist (dispatch table, thresholds, tool docs) is well organized.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong description: concrete third-person actions, an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, natural synonym coverage, and a well-defined niche. The minor deductions come from omitting the security/secret-detection capability and including a couple of generic trigger phrases ('identifying issues') that invite overlap with adjacent skills.

Suggestions

Add the secret/SQL-injection detection ('flags hardcoded secrets and injection patterns') to the what-clause to close the specificity gap.

Replace the generic 'identifying issues' with a more distinctive phrase such as 'finding code smells and complexity hotspots' to reduce overlap with general lint/review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several specific concrete actions — 'Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk', 'checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells', 'generates review reports' — in third-person voice. Not 5 because coverage has minor gaps: the analyzers' secret/SQL-injection detection is omitted and 'identifying issues' in the when-clause is generic.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit and concrete: the what ('Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports') and the when ('Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists'). This matches the anchor-5 example pattern of a clear what followed by concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage with synonym pairs users would actually say: 'reviewing pull requests' alongside 'PRs', plus 'code quality', 'code smells', 'SOLID', 'review checklists', and a full list of language names. Not 5 because a few natural phrasings are missing (e.g. 'code review' as a standalone trigger beyond 'Code review automation', 'review my code/diff', 'lint').

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — automated PR/code review across a named language set — with distinct triggers like 'reviewing pull requests' and 'SOLID violations'. Not 5 because 'analyzing code quality' and 'identifying issues' are broad enough to overlap with generic lint/refactor/review skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

engineering-team/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.md

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.