CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review-expert

Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements.

79

0.97x
Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

83%

0.97x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/code-review-expert/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 content is a well-structured, lean review workflow with concrete commands, templates, and excellent progressive disclosure via real reference files. Main gaps are minor: no explicit self-validation loop and analysis depth that depends on external checklists.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely efficient — bullet checklists for SOLID/security/quality are prompts, not padded explanations, and it avoids teaching concepts Claude already knows; a few enumerations (e.g. the long security item list) could be trimmed slightly, keeping it just under 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete commands ('git status -sb', 'git diff --stat', 'rg'), explicit file loads ('references/solid-checklist.md'), and copy-ready output/inline-comment templates; not 5 because the analysis steps rely on checklist references rather than fully self-contained executable examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with edge-case handling (no changes, >500-line diffs, mixed concerns) and a review-only confirmation gate; the destructive-operation cap does not apply since the skill explicitly forbids implementation, but there is no explicit 'verify your findings' feedback loop, so it stays at 4.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview in SKILL.md with well-signaled, one-level-deep references ('Load references/X.md for...') to four real bundle files, plus a Resources table mapping each file to its purpose; content is appropriately split and easy to navigate.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 specific and uses natural third-person trigger language, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps its completeness. It is mostly distinct and actionable but could add trigger phrasing and a few synonyms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing a pull request, staged git changes, or when the user asks for a code review.'

Include common synonyms such as 'PR review', 'pull request', or 'diff review' to improve trigger term coverage.

Mention the output posture (review-only by default) to further distinguish from implement-and-fix skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('code review of current git changes') and several concrete actions ('Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements'); not below 3 since it lists 3 specific actions, and not 5 because coverage is limited to SOLID/security without naming other review dimensions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (expert review detecting SOLID/security issues and proposing improvements) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would say ('code review', 'git changes', 'SOLID', 'security risks') but misses common synonyms like 'PR review', 'pull request', or 'code audit'; good coverage, a few natural terms missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'current git changes' scope plus SOLID/security lens is a reasonably distinct niche with minor overlap risk against generic code-review skills; not 5 because 'code review' is a broad category many skills could claim.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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
dtsola/xiaoyaosearch
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.