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.

67

Quality

84%

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 instruction-only skill: lean, fully executable, and it enumerates every outcome branch of the review command with exact output strings and an explicit recovery path for background timeouts. No changes are needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~25-line body is lean and every sentence carries tool-specific information Claude cannot know (flag semantics like "--base <the branch below yours> reviews just that layer", quoting paths, exact output strings, the 7200000ms recovery timeout). Nothing pads or explains concepts Claude already knows, matching the "every token earns its place" anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

The executable command is embedded directly ("!`plannotator review $ARGUMENTS`") with all flags documented and a literal example invocation, and the recovery path specifies exact parameters ("run_in_background and timeout: 7200000"). This is fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

All four outcome branches are enumerated with exact checkpoint strings — feedback/annotations to address, approval/LGTM to acknowledge, "Review session closed without feedback." to stop on (with the explicit guard "closing the session is not approval"), and background timeout with a re-run procedure. The single action is unambiguous with explicit validation checkpoints, and no destructive/batch cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references (none exist in the bundle), and the content is organized into clear sections: argument pass-through, invocation, and task handling. This meets the guideline for simple skills scoring 5 on well-organized sections alone.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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 states a clear, specific capability with well-chosen natural keywords and a distinct named-tool niche, but it omits any explicit "when to use this" trigger guidance, which caps its completeness. Adding a Use-when clause and naming the concrete follow-up actions on feedback would move it into the top band.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to review changes with Plannotator, mentions a PR/MR URL to review, or asks for a browser-based review of a worktree" — the description currently has no when-to-use guidance at all.

Replace the generic "act on the feedback that comes back" with the concrete actions taken (e.g. "apply requested edits and reply to annotations in the same conversation") to lift specificity.

Include the common synonyms ("PR", "MR", "review my changes") alongside "pull request URL" to round out trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Open Plannotator's browser-based code review UI" names the domain and a concrete action, and the enumerated targets (current worktree, another directory, a pull request URL) add specificity, but the second action "act on the feedback that comes back" is generic. This matches the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; the several-specific-actions anchor (4) would require the follow-up actions to be concrete too.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (open the browser-based review UI for a worktree, directory, or PR URL, then act on feedback), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3. It is not a 4 because the "when" is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases like "code review", "pull request URL", "worktree", and "feedback" are present and well-chosen, but common variants such as "PR", "MR", "review my changes", or "diff" are missing. This fits "good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing" rather than the comprehensive synonym/extension coverage of the top anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named-tool niche (Plannotator's browser-based review UI with PR/MR URL support) is clearly distinguishable, but the headline term "code review" overlaps with generic code-review skills, creating minor conflict risk. This fits "mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills" rather than the minimal-conflict top anchor.

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

backnotprop/plannotator

Path

apps/skills/claude/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.