review-pr
Review-only GitHub pull request analysis with the gh CLI. Use when asked to review a PR, provide structured feedback, or assess readiness to land. Do not merge, push, or make code changes you intend to keep.
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
89%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 well-crafted description that clearly defines its scope as read-only PR review, includes explicit trigger conditions, and establishes clear boundaries to avoid conflicts with code-modification skills. The main area for improvement is listing more specific concrete review actions to strengthen the specificity dimension.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions like 'summarize changes, flag potential issues, check test coverage, comment on code quality' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (GitHub PR analysis) and some actions (review, provide structured feedback, assess readiness to land), but doesn't list multiple concrete granular actions like 'check for code style issues, summarize changes, flag security concerns'. The constraint about not merging/pushing is helpful but is a boundary, not an action. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (review-only PR analysis with gh CLI, structured feedback, readiness assessment) and 'when' ('Use when asked to review a PR, provide structured feedback, or assess readiness to land'). Also includes explicit boundary conditions about what NOT to do. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'review a PR', 'pull request', 'feedback', 'readiness to land', 'gh CLI'. These are terms users would naturally use when requesting PR review assistance. Coverage of common variations is good. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive: scoped specifically to review-only GitHub PR analysis via gh CLI, with explicit exclusion of merge/push/code-change actions. This clearly separates it from skills that modify code, create PRs, or merge PRs. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, highly actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity and concrete executable commands throughout. Its main weakness is being slightly verbose in places with some redundant safety reminders and guardrails, and the monolithic structure could benefit from splitting the output template and worktree setup into referenced files. Overall it's a well-crafted operational skill that would guide Claude effectively through a PR review process.
Suggestions
Consider extracting the structured output template (sections A-J) into a separate REVIEW_TEMPLATE.md file to reduce the main skill's length and improve progressive disclosure.
Remove redundant safety statements — the 'Guardrails' section at the end repeats constraints already stated in 'Safety' and throughout the workflow. Consolidate into one location.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but there's some redundancy (e.g., safety rules repeated in 'Guardrails' section, 'Execution Rule' restating what the workflow implies, and the 'Known Failure Modes' section is somewhat obvious). The worktree setup block is detailed but justified given the complexity. Some tightening is possible. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable shell commands throughout, specific gh CLI invocations with exact JSON fields and jq filters, concrete git commands for worktree setup, and a detailed structured output format (sections A-J). Every step has copy-paste ready commands. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 14-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation (checking worktree exists, verifying review.md is non-empty with ls and wc), safety checkpoints (check existing implementations before reviewing PR code), and clear completion criteria. The feedback loop of 'create checklist, then execute' adds structure. The save-and-verify step at the end is a good validation checkpoint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a single monolithic file with no references to supporting documents. At ~180 lines with detailed shell commands and a 10-section output format, some content (like the structured output template A-J, or the worktree setup recipe) could be split into referenced files. However, given no bundle files exist, the inline approach is understandable, and the section headers provide reasonable navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw
- Commit
ec8d4f8
- 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.