CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-pr

Review Apache ShardingSphere pull requests and PR discussions from public evidence. Use for code-correctness or mergeability decisions, CI-focused review, root-cause and regression analysis, copy-ready committer feedback, challenged findings, multi-round review, and the repository completion loop's Local Candidate Preflight Mode.

75

Quality

92%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a dense, actionable procedural specification with clear sequenced workflows, validation gates, and well-signaled one-level references; its main weakness is mild redundancy across the contract and focus sections that lengthens an already substantial document.

Suggestions

Consolidate the head-SHA / authoritative file-list establishment guidance so it lives in one section (Scope and Evidence) rather than being restated in Core Contracts and the Decision Contract.

Merge the CI-vs-code-correctness rules so the Review Focus table is the single source, with the Decision Contract referencing it instead of restating the conditions.

Consider moving the detailed Output Contract format spec into a reference file, keeping SKILL.md as the overview, which would reduce body length while preserving the copy-ready formatting detail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is information-dense with no concept-explanation padding, but at ~256 lines it restates some concerns across Core Contracts, Review Focus, Decision Contract, and Review Workflow (e.g. head-SHA/file-list establishment and CI-vs-correctness rules appear in multiple sections), so it could be tightened despite being mostly efficient.

2 / 3

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: an ordered Decision Contract, exact status strings ('Local Preflight Result: Pass'), specific script paths ('scripts/build_review_inventory.py'), and a precise output-format specification give copy-ready, executable direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step Review Workflow is sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints — the Finding Proof Gate, the coverage-audit completion conditions, and 'Stop only after a full pass finds no new independent actionable finding' — plus an adversarial feedback loop for a batch/audit operation.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The overview points to four real reference files (evidence-access.md, high-risk-review.md, sql-parser-review.md, review-corrections.md) and real scripts, each one level deep and clearly signaled with 'Read ... when' triggers; sections are well organized for navigation.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 third-person, specific, and explicit about both capability and triggering situations, with strong natural trigger-term coverage and a clear niche tied to ShardingSphere PR review.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('Apache ShardingSphere pull requests and PR discussions') and lists many specific concrete actions: 'code-correctness or mergeability decisions', 'root-cause and regression analysis', 'copy-ready committer feedback', 'challenged findings', 'multi-round review', and 'Local Candidate Preflight Mode' — matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' ('Review Apache ShardingSphere pull requests and PR discussions from public evidence') and 'when' via an explicit 'Use for ...' trigger clause enumerating the triggering situations, satisfying the both-what-and-when anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms a user would actually say — 'pull requests', 'PR discussions', 'mergeability decisions', 'CI-focused review', 'root-cause', 'regression analysis', 'challenged findings', 'multi-round review' — giving good coverage of common phrasings; not merely technical jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to a specific repository ('Apache ShardingSphere') and a distinct set of PR-review/discussion modes, giving a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
apache/shardingsphere
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.