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.

69

Quality

87%

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.

An exemplary instruction-only skill body: lean, fully executable, and unambiguous about how to run the tool and how to react to each possible outcome. The explicit do-not-treat-close-as-approval guard is a particularly strong validation checkpoint for an interactive-review workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every sentence carries tool-specific information Claude could not infer: the command, flag semantics ("Both flags are session-only... and git-only"), stacked-branch guidance, path quoting, and the exact close message. There is no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

5 / 5

Actionability

The skill gives a copy-paste-ready command with flags and a concrete worked example ("plannotator review ../feature-worktree"), plus the exact output string to expect ("Review session closed without feedback."). The default invocation is fully executable and the common cases are covered.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step Behavior list is clearly sequenced with explicit branching for every terminal outcome — feedback (address it), approval/LGTM (continue), and close-without-feedback — and includes an explicit guard ("closing the session is not approval") preventing misinterpretation of the ambiguous outcome. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no validation cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and needs no external references (none exist in the bundle), with well-organized sections: purpose, command, option notes, and behavior. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, this earns a 5 with well-organized sections alone.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 specific, tool-anchored description that clearly states what the skill does and is highly distinct, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps completeness. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g.: "Use when the user asks to review changes, a diff, or a pull request in Plannotator rather than reading the diff inline."

Add natural synonym triggers such as "review my changes", "diff review", or "PR review" so the description matches how users phrase the request.

Optionally hint at what "act on the feedback" means (address annotations, apply suggested changes) to close the coverage gap in the stated actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"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" names concrete actions (open the review UI, act on feedback) and enumerates three specific input targets. Not 5 because it does not enumerate what acting on feedback involves; not 3 because the target enumeration covers the tool's scope with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (open the browser-based review UI and act on returned feedback), but the description contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance — the when lives only in the body, not the frontmatter. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms present: "code review", "worktree", "pull request URL", "feedback" — phrases a user would plausibly say. Not 5 because common variations like "review my changes", "diff", or "PR review" are missing; clearly above 3 since multiple natural, relevant keywords appear.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named tool "Plannotator" plus the specific UI-opening action give this a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic review skills. It is clearly distinguishable; the only shared vocabulary ("code review", "feedback") is anchored to the proprietary tool name.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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/skills/core/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.