CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review

Deep code review of PR or materialized candidate-patch changes for correctness, safety, and MAUI conventions. Uses independence-first assessment (code before narrative) and delegates to the maui-expert-reviewer agent for per-dimension sub-agent evaluation. Triggers on: "review code for PR", "code review PR", "review candidate patch", "analyze code changes", "check PR code quality". Do NOT use for: summarizing PRs, describing what changed, general PR questions, running tests, or fixing code.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced with strong validation checkpoints, but it carries notable internal repetition and is a single monolithic file with no bundle-based progressive disclosure. Tightening the duplicated CI/latch rules and moving reference material into separate files would lift the two middle dimensions.

Suggestions

Consolidate the CI/LGTM rules stated in Step 5, the Step 6 confidence table, and Verdict Consistency Rule #6 into a single canonical section referenced by the others, to remove the repeated ~3x restatement.

Extract the CI exit-code reference table, the Review Output Format template, and the Verdict Consistency Rules into a references/ file (e.g. references/output-format.md) and link to it from the main flow, moving progressive_disclosure toward one-level-deep references instead of a monolithic SKILL.md.

Merge the latch/early-return failure-mode guidance duplicated across Core Principle #6, Step 6 Failure-Mode Probing, and Rule #8 into one location to reduce token cost without losing the instruction.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is action-dense with no basic-concept filler, but it restates the same guidance repeatedly — the CI/LGTM rules appear in Step 5, the Step 6 confidence table, and Rule #6, and the latch/early-return failure-mode material repeats across Core Principle #6, Step 6, and Rule #8 — so it could be tightened. It is not the verbose 'explains concepts Claude knows' anchor (1) nor fully lean (3).

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides fully executable commands — 'gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER> --repo dotnet/maui', the 'gh api ... reviews --method POST' posting snippet with jq, and exact 'gh pr checks --required' exit-code semantics — making it copy-paste ready, matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (CI classification, prior-review reconciliation across three surfaces) and feedback loops (retry via alternate read-only route, re-validate), plus a Completion Criteria checklist, matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is monolithic — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files exist and everything lives inline in a ~360-line SKILL.md; detailed reference material (the CI exit-code table, the output-format template, the Verdict Consistency Rules) that could be split out is inline. It has clear section structure (above the monolithic anchor 1) but content that should be separate is not split or signaled via bundle references (below anchor 3).

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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 is specific, third-person, and answers both what and when with explicit positive and negative triggers, achieving the top anchor on every dimension. It is a strong, well-calibrated skill description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Deep code review ... for correctness, safety, and MAUI conventions' and 'delegates to the maui-expert-reviewer agent for per-dimension sub-agent evaluation' — matching the anchor that enumerates several specific actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers what (deep code review for correctness/safety/MAUI conventions) and when (explicit 'Triggers on' plus a 'Do NOT use for' negative-scope clause), matching the anchor that answers both with explicit triggers.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'Triggers on: "review code for PR", "code review PR", "review candidate patch", "analyze code changes", "check PR code quality"' provides good coverage of natural phrases a user would actually say, matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The MAUI-specific code-review niche, distinct trigger phrases, and a 'Do NOT use for' clause excluding summarizing, general PR questions, tests, and fixes give it a clear niche unlikely to conflict with adjacent skills.

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
dotnet/maui
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.