review
Code review — yours or someone else's. Self-review before pushing, structured PR review against the story and the codebase, and feedback processing once reviewers respond. Reads the diff in surrounding context, not the patch alone.
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%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 description that clearly articulates specific code review capabilities across multiple workflow stages (self-review, PR review, feedback processing). Its main weakness is the lack of an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which would help Claude know precisely when to select this skill. The natural language and trigger terms are excellent and would match well against user requests.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a code review, wants to review a PR, needs to process reviewer feedback, or wants a self-review before pushing.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: self-review before pushing, structured PR review against the story and codebase, feedback processing once reviewers respond, and reading diffs in surrounding context. These are distinct, concrete activities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is well-covered with specific actions (self-review, PR review, feedback processing). However, there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'code review', 'PR review', 'self-review', 'pushing', 'diff', 'feedback', 'reviewers', 'codebase'. These cover common variations of how users talk about code review workflows. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche around code review workflows specifically — self-review, PR review, and feedback processing. This is distinct from general coding skills, debugging skills, or git/commit skills, with low conflict risk. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for three distinct code review workflows. The six-dimension PR review framework and the verdict system for self-review are particularly effective. Minor verbosity in the failure modes and exclusions sections prevents a perfect conciseness score, but overall the content earns its token budget.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but some sections are slightly verbose — e.g., the 'What Review Does NOT Do' and 'Failure Modes' sections could be tightened. The stance section and transitions are well-written but add moderate overhead. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The three moves (self-review, PR review, feedback processing) provide concrete, specific guidance with clear checklists, severity labels, and explicit behavioral instructions (e.g., 'Name the line or test that satisfies each AC'). While there's no executable code, this is an instruction-only skill where the guidance is highly actionable and specific. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Each of the three workflows is clearly sequenced with explicit steps. Self-review has a clear checklist ending in a verdict system (✅/🟡/🔴). PR review walks six named dimensions with severity classification. Feedback processing has a categorize→group→respond sequence. Validation is embedded (run CI checks first, walk each AC, produce honest verdict). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill serves as a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to foundation skill, model.md, guidelines.md, and the reviewer agent. Cross-plugin context and transitions sections clearly signal handoffs to other skills (secure, verify, ship, docs). Content is appropriately scoped without being monolithic. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- audenaert/etak
- Commit
632c389
- 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.