CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

reviewing-msbuild-code

Reviews MSBuild code changes using a 24-dimension methodology. Activates for code review, PR review, pull request analysis, design review, architecture review, code quality assessment, or style check of MSBuild code. Covers backwards compatibility, ChangeWave discipline, performance, allocation awareness, test coverage, error message quality, logging, string comparison, API surface, target authoring, cross-platform correctness, code simplification, concurrency, naming, SDK integration, evaluation model integrity, correctness, dependency management, security, and build infrastructure.

64

Quality

76%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/reviewing-msbuild-code/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is an extremely lean router that concisely delegates to an `@expert-reviewer` agent, which is token-efficient but leaves the skill body thin on actionable review detail and workflow structure. The real methodology is collapsed into a single agent reference rather than surfaced as navigable reference files, weakening progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Surface a compact outline of the 4-wave workflow (the wave names and their validation/checkpoint gates) directly in SKILL.md so the review sequence and feedback loops are visible without entering the agent.

Move the per-dimension checklists and folder hotspot mapping into dedicated files under references/ (e.g., dimensions.md, hotspots.md) and link to them from the body, so the detailed content is navigable one level deep instead of hidden inside one agent.

Add a brief "what to return / how to verify the review is complete" note so the body itself is actionable, rather than relying entirely on the agent for execution guidance.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is two lean sentences ("Invoke `@expert-reviewer`..." and a summary of what the agent contains) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching anchor 5 (lean, assumes competence, every token earns its place).

5 / 5

Actionability

"Invoke `@expert-reviewer`" is a concrete executable instruction, but the body provides no review specifics — all methodology, checklists, and the 4-wave workflow are offloaded to the agent, leaving key details missing; this matches anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete) rather than 4 which expects coverage of common cases.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The single action "Invoke `@expert-reviewer`" is unambiguous, keeping it above anchor 3, but the referenced "4-wave workflow" is hidden inside the agent with no visible sequence or validation checkpoints, so it does not reach anchor 5's explicit validation steps and feedback loops.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The overview is lean and the delegation is signaled ("@expert-reviewer" is named), but the substantial content (24 dimensions of checklists, folder hotspot mapping, 4-wave workflow) is collapsed into one opaque agent with no navigable file structure, matching anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be surfaced is buried) rather than 4's well-organized split.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 strong: it explicitly states both what the skill does and when it activates, with natural trigger terms and a clearly scoped MSBuild niche that minimizes conflict risk. Its main weakness is specificity, since the coverage list enumerates review dimensions rather than concrete review actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Reviews MSBuild code changes" is one concrete action, but the long "Covers backwards compatibility, ChangeWave discipline, performance..." list enumerates review topics/dimensions (nouns) rather than multiple discrete actions, matching anchor 3 (names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4 which expects several specific verbs.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers "what" ("Reviews MSBuild code changes using a 24-dimension methodology") and "when" ("Activates for code review, PR review..."), with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5; it is not 4 because the "when" is fully explicit rather than only weakly implied.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"code review, PR review, pull request analysis, design review, architecture review, code quality assessment, or style check" are natural phrases users would say, including the PR/pull-request synonym pair, but MSBuild file extensions a user might cite (.proj, .targets, .props, .csproj) are absent, so it stops short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Every trigger is consistently scoped to "of MSBuild code" and the domain is a clear niche (MSBuild code review) with minimal overlap risk, matching anchor 5; even though "code review" and "PR review" are generic terms, the MSBuild qualifier makes them distinct.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

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/msbuild
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.