CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

plannotator-review

Open Plannotator's browser-based code review UI for the current worktree, another directory, or a pull request URL, then act on the feedback that comes back.

Quality

86%

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

100%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.

The body is an exemplary short, single-purpose skill: it gives an executable command with concrete examples, explains exactly why and how to run it in the background, and enumerates explicit behavior for each possible review outcome. Nothing is padded, and the failure-mode guard ('closing the session is not approval') shows careful anticipation of misinterpretation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every sentence carries non-obvious, project-specific information — the background-run rationale tied to shell time limits, stacked-branch '--base' semantics, and 'closing the session is not approval' — with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Matches anchor 5 (lean and efficient; every token earns its place).

5 / 5

Actionability

Provides a copy-paste-ready command block with flags, a concrete invocation example ('plannotator review ../feature-worktree'), quoting guidance for spaced paths, and explicit per-outcome handling. For an instruction-only skill this is fully concrete guidance covering the common cases — anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence (run in background → end turn → read the named output file → act) with explicit checkpoints for every outcome, including a guard against the key failure mode ('closing the session is not approval. Do not begin any work'). Not a destructive or batch operation, and the simple-skill exception applies to this unambiguous single-task workflow.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is well organized as a self-contained overview; per the rubric's simple-skill guideline this scores 5. No bundle files exist to reference, and none are needed.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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.

The description is specific and distinct, naming concrete review targets and the tool's browser-based UI, with good natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is the missing 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness and leaves invocation guidance only in the body (which model invocation does not read). Adding explicit trigger phrases would round it out.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause to the description, e.g. 'Use when the user wants to review changes or a PR in Plannotator's browser UI instead of reading a diff inline,' so trigger guidance lives where model invocation actually reads it.

Include common trigger variations such as 'PR', 'review my changes', and 'diff' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Briefly specify what 'act on the feedback' means (e.g. address annotations or apply suggested changes in the reviewed directory) to make the second half of the capability as concrete as the first.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete capabilities — 'browser-based code review UI', the three review targets ('current worktree, another directory, or a pull request URL'), and 'act on the feedback that comes back' — with only the acting-on-feedback half left generic. Fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5, since coverage is not comprehensive, or 3, since more than 1–2 actions are enumerated.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (open Plannotator's review UI for a worktree, directory, or PR URL, then act on feedback), but the description contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3. Not 4 because the 'when' is absent rather than merely implicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would actually say — 'code review', 'pull request', 'worktree', 'feedback' — but misses common variations like 'PR', 'review my changes', or 'diff'. Anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) is the closest fit.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named tool 'Plannotator' plus 'browser-based code review UI' carves a clear niche, but 'code review' as a trigger has minor overlap risk with generic review skills. Fits anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap) better than 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

backnotprop/plannotator

Path

apps/qwen-code/skills/plannotator-review/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.