CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

named-persona-adversarial-review

Code review through the lens of real engineers' documented philosophies (Torvalds, Thompson, Carmack, Kent Beck, Jobs, Cagan). Complements abstract-role adversarial review with named, sourced perspectives. Use when automated review findings feel generic, when a PR has architectural or UX impact, or when the author wants pre-submit hardening beyond standard checks.

67

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

The canonical home for this skill is named-persona-adversarial-review in alirezarezvani/claude-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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-structured, highly actionable review skill with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit validation feedback loops. Its one real defect is that its core grounding reference (references/persona_principles.md) is referenced throughout the body but missing from the bundle, breaking the progressive-disclosure promise.

Suggestions

Ship references/persona_principles.md — the body treats it as the load-bearing source for every persona's documented principles and confidence levels, but no references/ directory exists in the bundle, so the skill cannot actually ground a persona as its own rules require.

Once the reference file exists, verify each persona named in the Persona Pools tables (Torvalds, Thompson, Carmack, Beck, Brooks, Jobs, Cagan, Traynor) has a corresponding sourced entry in it, or remove unmatched personas from the pools.

Tighten the Rules vs. Anti-Patterns overlap (e.g. 'Honesty over quantity' / 'Fabricating a finding to hit ≥1 issue', and 'Product persona mandatory' / 'Product person skipped') to recover a few tokens without losing the load-bearing attribution discipline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense but mostly earned for a multi-step review skill — it assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining generic concepts, though the theory citations (de Bono, Kahneman) and some redundancy between Rules and Anti-Patterns could be trimmed, fitting the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor below the lean 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides highly concrete, specific guidance for an instruction skill: persona pools with principles and blind spots, explicit routing rules per problem type, a severity table with promotion rules, a worked example output, and a four-step process — fully actionable with common cases covered, satisfying the top anchor without needing executable code.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequences a clear multi-step process (Step 0 read twice → Step 1 ground principles → Step 2 review → Step 3 synthesize) with an explicit validation checkpoint (the Feynman integrity check), feedback loops (re-review rounds on CRITICAL/CONCERNS), and explicit exit conditions, matching the top anchor; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since review is read-only.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure and signaling are good — sections are well-organized and references like references/persona_principles.md are clearly signaled and one level deep — but that load-bearing referenced file is absent from the bundle (no references/ directory exists), so the overview-to-reference navigation the skill depends on does not actually resolve, capping the score at 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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, well-differentiated description that explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it, with natural trigger phrases and a clear niche against its sibling skill. Its only weakness is that it names a single review action rather than multiple distinct capabilities.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (code review) and a concrete method (review through real engineers' documented philosophies, with six personas named), but describes a single action rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, so it is not comprehensive — matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the 'lists several specific actions' anchor above.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Code review through the lens of real engineers' documented philosophies... named, sourced perspectives') and when ('Use when automated review findings feel generic, when a PR has architectural or UX impact, or when the author wants pre-submit hardening beyond standard checks') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user-facing phrases like 'code review', 'PR has architectural or UX impact', 'pre-submit hardening', and 'automated review findings feel generic' — good keyword coverage with only a few common synonyms missing, fitting the 4 anchor and clearly above the sparse 3 anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Carves a clear niche ('named, sourced perspectives') and explicitly contrasts itself with 'abstract-role adversarial review', but acknowledges overlap by framing itself as a complement to adversarial-reviewer, so minor overlap risk remains — the 4 anchor rather than the fully-distinct 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing, 4 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 10 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
alirezarezvani/claude-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.