CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review

Review code changes for correctness, clarity, and risk. Use when the user asks for a review, a second opinion on a diff, or feedback on code they wrote.

80

Quality

100%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

A concise, well-structured instruction skill that leads with purpose and gives specific, sequenced, actionable review guidance without padding. It appropriately fits in a single SKILL.md with no external references needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no explanation of what code review is or basic concepts — with every line ('Lead with the single most important issue', 'show the smallest edit') earning its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete, specific guidance — 'Group feedback as Correctness, Clarity, and Risk', 'show the smallest edit that fixes each issue', 'Call out anything you could not verify' — fully actionable for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with a clear, sequenced 1–5 process; per the simple-skills note it scores 3 when the single action is unambiguous, and it involves no destructive/batch ops needing validation.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed for a skill this short; content is organized into a purpose line plus an Instructions section, satisfying the under-50-line guideline for scoring 3 on well-organized sections.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 tight, well-crafted description that states concrete capabilities and pairs them with an explicit, naturally-worded 'Use when...' trigger. It avoids fluff and over-claims while remaining distinct from adjacent skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'Review code changes for correctness, clarity, and risk' — naming the domain and three distinct review dimensions, matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Review code changes for correctness, clarity, and risk') and when via an explicit 'Use when the user asks for a review, a second opinion on a diff, or feedback on code they wrote' clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It covers natural terms users would actually say — 'review', 'a second opinion on a diff', 'feedback on code they wrote' — giving good coverage of common phrasings.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (code review) with distinct triggers — 'review', 'second opinion on a diff', 'feedback on code' — making it unlikely to fire for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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
cloudflare/agents
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.