review-pr
Analyze a GitHub pull request including diff, comments, related issues, and local code context
67
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
32%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 identifies a clear domain (GitHub pull requests) and lists relevant components to analyze, but lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') which is critical for skill selection. The verb 'analyze' is too general, and common user terms like 'PR' or 'code review' are missing.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks to review a PR, analyze pull request changes, or needs help with code review on GitHub'
Include common term variations: 'PR', 'code review', 'merge request', 'review changes'
Replace generic 'Analyze' with specific actions like 'Review code changes, summarize discussion threads, identify related issues, and provide feedback on pull requests'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (GitHub pull request) and lists several actions (analyze diff, comments, related issues, local code context), but uses the general verb 'analyze' rather than listing multiple specific concrete actions like 'review changes', 'summarize feedback', 'identify conflicts'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does (analyze PR components) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'GitHub', 'pull request', 'diff', 'comments', 'issues' that users might say, but misses common variations like 'PR', 'code review', 'merge request', or 'review changes'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Fairly specific to GitHub PRs which creates some distinctiveness, but 'analyze' and 'code context' could overlap with general code review or GitHub issue skills without clearer boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 well-crafted, highly actionable skill for PR review with excellent workflow clarity and concrete executable commands. The main weakness is moderate verbosity in explanatory text and a somewhat monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed subsections (especially the extensive test coverage section) into separate reference documents.
Suggestions
Trim explanatory phrases like 'Referred to as X below' and 'If absent, there are no special instructions' - Claude can infer these
Consider extracting the detailed test coverage evaluation (7a-7e) into a separate TEST_REVIEW.md reference file to improve progressive disclosure
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundant explanations (e.g., explaining what reviewer instructions are, verbose verification steps). The step-by-step format is appropriate for the complexity but could be tightened in places. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands throughout (gh pr view, gh pr diff, python scripts, git commands). Each step has concrete, copy-paste ready commands with specific flags and JSON fields to extract. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with clear sequencing, explicit validation checkpoints (verify cwd, check CI status), conditional logic (if pyproject.toml touched), and parallel execution guidance. Includes error handling (stop with error if cwd cannot be set). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-structured with clear sections, but it's a monolithic document that could benefit from splitting detailed sub-processes (like test coverage evaluation) into separate reference files. References to external skills (/create-worktree) and files (@CLAUDE.md) are appropriately one-level deep. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.