review-code

Multi-dimensional code review with structured reports. Analyzes correctness, readability, performance, security, testing, and architecture. Triggers on "review code", "code review", "审查代码", "代码审查".

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/review-code/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

35%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The skill provides a well-structured overview of a multi-dimensional code review process with clear phases and dimensions, but suffers from significant redundancy — the same information (6 dimensions, phased workflow) is repeated in the architecture diagram, design principles, execution flow, and dimension table. The actual actionable content is almost entirely delegated to external files that aren't provided, making the SKILL.md more of a table of contents than an executable guide. The bilingual approach adds tokens without proportional clarity gains.

Suggestions

Eliminate redundancy by consolidating the architecture diagram, execution flow, and design principles into a single concise workflow section — currently the 6 dimensions and phase sequence are stated 3-4 times.

Add concrete, inline examples of what a review finding looks like (e.g., a sample correctness issue with file location, severity, and fix suggestion) so Claude can act without reading external files.

Add explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow, such as 'verify all 6 dimensions have findings before generating report' and 'if critical issues found during quick-scan, prioritize those dimensions in deep-review.'

Choose one language (English or Chinese) for instructions to reduce token overhead, or clearly separate them rather than mixing inline.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Significant redundancy throughout: the architecture diagram, execution flow, and key design principles all repeat the same information about the 6 dimensions and phased approach. The review dimensions table, issue severity table, and mandatory prerequisites are duplicated across sections. The bilingual Chinese/English mix adds tokens without clear benefit, and concepts like 'state-driven orchestration' are explained multiple times.	1 / 3
Actionability	The directory setup provides executable JavaScript/Bash code, and the execution flow gives a clear sequence. However, the actual review logic is entirely delegated to referenced files (specs/, phases/, templates/) that are not provided. The skill tells Claude to read external documents but doesn't contain the concrete review instructions, checklists, or executable examples of how to actually perform a review or generate findings.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The execution flow is clearly sequenced with named phases (collect-context → quick-scan → deep-review → generate-report → complete), and state outputs are specified. However, there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops — no step says 'if findings are incomplete, re-scan' or 'validate report completeness before finalizing.' For a multi-step review process, the absence of error recovery or verification caps this at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references many external files (specs/, phases/, templates/) with clear tables and links, which is good structure. However, since no bundle files are provided, we cannot verify these references exist. The SKILL.md itself is also too long — the architecture diagram, execution flow, and reference tables contain substantial overlap that inflates the main file. The mandatory prerequisites and reference documents tables partially duplicate each other.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a strong, well-crafted description that concisely communicates what the skill does (multi-dimensional code review producing structured reports across six specific dimensions) and when to use it (explicit trigger phrases in both English and Chinese). It uses third-person voice correctly and avoids vague language or unnecessary verbosity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete dimensions of analysis: correctness, readability, performance, security, testing, and architecture. Also mentions 'structured reports' as a concrete output format.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' (multi-dimensional code review with structured reports analyzing six dimensions) and 'when' (explicit triggers on specific phrases). The 'Triggers on' clause serves as an explicit 'Use when' equivalent.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural English trigger terms ('review code', 'code review') and Chinese equivalents ('审查代码', '代码审查'), covering common variations users would naturally say.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description carves out a clear niche: structured multi-dimensional code review with specific analysis dimensions. The explicit trigger terms are distinct and unlikely to conflict with general coding assistance or other development skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
Commit: 07491b0

Reviewed: 20 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.