team-review
Unified team skill for code review. 3-role pipeline: scanner, reviewer, fixer. Triggers on team-review.
67
60%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/team-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
35%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 conveys the general purpose (code review) and a unique structural element (3-role pipeline), but lacks specific concrete actions, natural user-facing trigger terms, and an explicit 'Use when...' clause. It reads more like an internal technical note than a description designed to help Claude select the right skill from a large pool.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a thorough code review, wants to scan for issues, get review feedback, or apply automated fixes.'
Include natural keywords users would actually say, such as 'code review', 'review my code', 'pull request review', 'PR feedback', 'find bugs', 'fix issues'.
List specific concrete actions for each role, e.g., 'Scans code for potential bugs and style violations, reviews logic and architecture concerns, and generates fix suggestions with corrected code.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code review) and describes a structural approach (3-role pipeline: scanner, reviewer, fixer), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'identify bugs', 'suggest fixes', 'check style compliance', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed (code review with a 3-role pipeline), but the 'when' is only vaguely stated as 'Triggers on team-review' without a proper 'Use when...' clause explaining the scenarios that should activate this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger term is 'team-review', which is a technical/internal command rather than a natural keyword a user would say. Missing natural terms like 'code review', 'review my PR', 'pull request', 'check my code'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The '3-role pipeline' and 'team-review' trigger give it some distinctiveness from a generic code review skill, but 'code review' is broad enough to overlap with other review-related skills, and the description doesn't clearly delineate its niche. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured orchestration skill that clearly defines a multi-agent code review pipeline with concrete templates, explicit delegation rules, and comprehensive error handling. The progressive disclosure is excellent, keeping the SKILL.md as a router while deferring role-specific logic to separate files. Minor verbosity in some sections (architecture diagram, spawn template formatting) prevents a perfect conciseness score, but overall the content is highly actionable and well-organized.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly dense and information-rich, but includes some sections that could be tightened—the ASCII architecture diagram, the verbose spawn template, and the agent coordination section have some redundancy. However, most content is non-obvious orchestration logic that Claude wouldn't inherently know. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete spawn_agent templates with exact parameter structures, specific tool call allowlists/blocklists, exact file paths, CLI commands, and request_user_input payloads. The delegation lock table is immediately executable as a decision matrix. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequential 3-stage pipeline (scan -> review -> fix) is clearly defined with explicit skip conditions (0 findings -> skip review+fix, user declines fix -> skip fix). The delegation lock provides validation checkpoints, agent health checks are specified for resume/complete, and error handling covers failure modes with specific resolutions. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure: SKILL.md serves as a router/overview, with role-specific details delegated to one-level-deep references (roles/coordinator/role.md, roles/scanner/role.md, etc.) and specs in separate files (specs/pipelines.md, specs/dimensions.md, etc.). All references are clearly signaled with relative paths. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
0f8e801
- 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.