review-changes
Review uncommitted or recently committed documentation changes for correctness, coherence, and style compliance. Use before creating a PR to catch issues. "review my changes", "review the diff", "check the fix before submitting", "does this look right".
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
82%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 solid description that clearly communicates both what the skill does and when to use it, with good natural trigger phrases. Its main weaknesses are moderate specificity in the actions it performs and some potential overlap with general code review or linting skills. Adding more concrete actions and narrowing the trigger phrases could improve distinctiveness.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions like 'checks grammar, verifies link validity, validates markdown formatting, ensures consistent terminology and tone'.
Differentiate more clearly from general code review skills by emphasizing documentation-specific aspects, e.g., 'Focuses on prose quality, not code logic — distinct from code review tools'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (documentation changes) and some actions (review for correctness, coherence, style compliance), but doesn't list multiple concrete specific actions like 'check grammar, verify links, validate formatting, ensure consistent terminology'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Review uncommitted or recently committed documentation changes for correctness, coherence, and style compliance') and when ('Use before creating a PR to catch issues') with explicit trigger phrases listed. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural phrases users would actually say: 'review my changes', 'review the diff', 'check the fix before submitting', 'does this look right'. Also includes contextual triggers like 'before creating a PR' and terms like 'uncommitted', 'committed', 'documentation'. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While it specifies documentation changes and diff review, it could overlap with general code review skills or linting skills. The focus on 'documentation' and 'diff' helps somewhat, but 'review my changes' and 'does this look right' are quite generic triggers that could match other review-oriented skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 review workflow skill that provides clear, actionable steps with concrete git commands and specific decision criteria. Its main strength is the logical progression from identifying changes through cross-reference checking to a final approve/reject decision. Minor verbosity in a few sections (steps 4-5) where some guidance restates what Claude would naturally do keeps it from a perfect conciseness score.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but some sections like step 5 ('Evaluate as a reader') and parts of step 4 are somewhat obvious guidance that Claude would naturally apply. The overall length is reasonable but could be tightened in places. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable git commands for each comparison scenario, specific criteria for approve/reject decisions, and clear instructions on what to check (anchors, URLs, CLI flags). The guidance is specific enough to act on directly. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced from identifying changes through to a final decision. Each step builds on the previous one, and step 7 provides explicit decision criteria with a feedback loop (request changes with specific quotes and fixes). The validation is woven throughout steps 3-6. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a skill of this scope (a single review workflow under 80 lines), the content is well-organized with numbered sections that serve as clear navigation. No bundle files are needed, and the content doesn't warrant splitting into multiple files. The structure is clean and scannable. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- docker/docs
- Commit
c0aa985
- 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.