code-reviewer
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin. 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.
86
86%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
84%
1.78xAverage score across 6 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, supported languages, specific capabilities, and when to use it. It uses third-person voice consistently, includes natural trigger terms, and has an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The description is concise yet comprehensive, making it easy for Claude to select appropriately from a large skill set.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk', 'checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells', 'generates review reports'. Also specifies supported languages (TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (code review automation, analyzes PRs for complexity/risk, checks SOLID violations and code smells, generates reports) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing trigger scenarios (reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'pull requests', 'PRs', 'code quality', 'code review', 'review checklists', 'code smells', 'SOLID violations'. Covers multiple language names users might mention. Good coverage of natural variations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly carved out niche around code review automation and PR analysis. The combination of PR review, SOLID violations, code smells, and review report generation makes it distinctly identifiable and unlikely to conflict with general coding or linting skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with strong actionability—concrete commands, clear thresholds, and specific verdict criteria. Its main weakness is the lack of an explicit end-to-end workflow showing how the three tools chain together with validation checkpoints, and some sections could be tightened by removing detection lists that Claude could infer from the tool names and context.
Suggestions
Add an explicit end-to-end workflow section (e.g., '## Review Workflow') showing the sequence: run PR analyzer → run quality checker → feed both into report generator, with validation/checkpoint steps between each stage.
Trim the 'What it detects' bullet lists—Claude can infer many of these from context. Keep only non-obvious or critical items, or consolidate into a single reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient with good use of tables and structured lists, but some sections are slightly verbose—e.g., listing every detection capability in bullet form when Claude could infer many of these. The reference guide descriptions add moderate value but border on unnecessary summarization. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable bash commands with multiple usage patterns (default, specific branches, JSON output, pre-computed analyses). Commands are copy-paste ready with clear flag explanations. Thresholds and verdict scoring are concrete and specific. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The three tools are clearly described individually, but there's no explicit end-to-end workflow showing how to sequence them together (analyze PR → check quality → generate report) with validation checkpoints. The report generator hints at combining results but lacks a step-by-step review workflow with error handling or verification steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a clear table of contents, well-organized tool sections, and one-level-deep references to detailed guides (checklist, standards, antipatterns) that are clearly signaled with brief descriptions of what each contains. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- alirezarezvani/claude-skills
- Commit
f567c61
- 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.