CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

reviewer-protocol

Reviewer rejection workflow and strict lockout semantics

56

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.copilot/skills/reviewer-protocol/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

64%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.

A well-structured, context-efficient procedural skill with strong adaptability and sensible progressive disclosure via bundle files. Its main weaknesses are overclaiming semantic preservation from test passage and thinner coverage of edge-case recovery and evidence for its safety claims.

Suggestions

Replace the unconditional 'tests pass ⇒ semantics preserved' assertion with an explicit caveat that this holds only when a covering test suite exists, and add a step to assess/estimate test coverage before relying on it.

Expand the recovery section to handle missing or empty test suites (e.g. fall back to type checking, build verification, or a manual diff review gate) rather than silently assuming tests are present.

Either cite the basis for the AST-based safety claims or soften them to operational checks (parse-equivalence, import-graph unchanged) that the procedure actually performs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Robustness

Covers git-stash rollback and 'tests fail → abort' recovery, but lacks handling for detached HEAD, partial commits, large binary trees, or test-suite absence, leaving several real failure modes unaddressed.

3 / 5

Correctness

The procedure is mostly sound, but equating 'tests still pass' with 'semantics preserved' is an overclaim (tests may be absent or incomplete), and the Python AST example does not handle the general multi-statement case it implies.

3 / 5

Adaptability

Explicitly branches on input modality (file vs symbol vs snippet), language (Python/JS/Go examples), and repo state (dirty tree → git stash), giving a model clear decision points for varied contexts.

4 / 5

Groundedness

Generally grounded in concrete tooling, but several assertions (AST preservation of semantics, test-suite sufficiency) are stated without citation or evidence, and the safety claim rests on tests-existing assumptions that may not hold.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides a numbered procedure with concrete commands (git stash, language-specific grep, a Python AST transform snippet, test invocation) and explicit fallbacks, so a model can execute without guessing; some steps stay slightly abstract ('apply targeted edits') rather than fully scripted.

4 / 5

Context Efficiency

Uses tight procedural prose, bulleted sub-procedures, and links to on-demand bundle files rather than inlining large examples, keeping token cost low for the common path while preserving depth when needed.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Keeps the main body focused on the core procedure and defers detail to bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) plus a short 'Key files' pointer, avoiding upfront overload; the per-language heuristics are appropriately pushed out of the headline path.

4 / 5

Total

25

/

35

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.

A solid, purposeful description that defines scope and capabilities clearly within a tight length. It is strongest on length and intent clarity but weaker on trigger phrasing and on surfacing the AST/test verification components that distinguish the skill's rigor.

Suggestions

Restructure the trigger list as comma-separated user-style phrasings (e.g. 'refactor this function, extract a method, inline this logic, split this long function') so the activation keywords match real invocations.

Mention the two load-bearing mechanisms — AST-based change analysis and test-suite verification — in the description so the skill's value over naive find/replace is visible before loading.

Replace 'Reorganizing file structure' with a more specific term like 'moving symbols between modules' to avoid overlap with general file-management skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Key Components

Lists refactor operation types as the key capabilities, but does not name the deeper components the body relies on (AST-based safety analysis, test-suite verification) until the reader opens the skill.

3 / 5

Trigger Phrasing

Triggers are listed as declarative task labels rather than the natural imperative/gerund phrasings a user or model would actually emit ('refactor this function', 'extract method'), making exact string matching less likely.

3 / 5

Length Compliance

Description is approximately 60 words across three sentences, well under any 1024-token ceiling and comfortably concise for context-window budgeting.

4 / 5

Triggers Keywords

Names six concrete trigger conditions ('Renaming variables', 'Extracting functions', 'Inlining logic', 'Splitting long functions', 'Simplifying conditional expressions', 'Reorganizing file structure'), but they are embedded in prose rather than comma-separated keyword form, missing some phrasings an agent might use.

4 / 5

Objectives Clarity

The combined goal ('automate mechanical refactoring tasks while preserving program semantics') is concrete and judgeable, though 'preserving semantics' is not explicitly tied to a verification step in the description itself.

4 / 5

Description Quality

Three sentences: first defines purpose, second lists capabilities, third delimits scope to refactoring (not new features), giving a clear mental model that distinguishes it from adjacent skills.

4 / 5

Total

22

/

30

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
bradygaster/squad
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.