CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

plannotator-review

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

65

Quality

77%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./apps/skills/core/plannotator-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

93%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 efficient, actionable CLI skill: a copy-paste-ready command, a concrete stacked-branch example, and a clear sequenced workflow with outcome branching. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit error-recovery checkpoint if the command itself fails.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what code review or Plannotator is, and every line (the command, the stacked-branch note, the behavioral steps) earns its place. This matches anchor 5 (lean and efficient; every token earns its place).

5 / 5

Actionability

Provides a copy-paste-ready command 'plannotator review [--base <ref>] [--diff-type <type>] [optional-pr-url]' plus a concrete worked scenario for stacked branches ('Pass --base <the branch immediately below yours>'). This matches anchor 5 (fully executable, copy-paste ready, covers common cases).

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Behavior list gives a clear four-step sequence with outcome-based branching (handle feedback vs. acknowledge approval), which is a feedback loop. It stops short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit validation/error-recovery checkpoint (e.g., what to do if the command itself fails).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a short single-purpose skill (well under 50 lines) with no need for external references, and it is organized into clear sections (intro, Run, Behavior). Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, that qualifies for anchor 5 with well-organized sections and no bundle files to misplace.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 clearly conveys what the skill does and ties it to a distinct tool, with decent trigger keywords, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and its second action ('act on the feedback') is generic. Completeness is capped at 3 by the missing trigger guidance.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user wants to review current code changes via Plannotator instead of reading a diff inline.'

Replace the generic 'act on the feedback that comes back' with concrete actions such as 'address the returned annotations and fix flagged issues in the same conversation'.

Include a couple more natural trigger terms users would say (e.g. 'review my changes', 'diff', 'code review') to broaden keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (Plannotator code review UI) and two concrete actions — 'Open ... code review UI' and 'act on the feedback that comes back' — but 'act on the feedback' is generic, so coverage is not comprehensive. It sits at anchor 3 (1-2 concrete actions) rather than 4 (several specific actions).

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does (open the review UI and act on feedback), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'when' is only weakly implied via 'for the current worktree or a pull request URL'. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would say — 'code review', 'worktree', 'pull request URL', 'feedback' — giving good coverage, though a few common variants like 'diff' or 'changes' are absent. It is above anchor 3 (some keywords, missing variants) but short of anchor 5 (comprehensive synonyms/extensions).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Tied to the named tool 'Plannotator' with a clear niche, so it is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general code-review skills. It does not reach anchor 5 because 'code review' is a broad term that could still overlap with sibling review skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
backnotprop/plannotator
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.