CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

respond-to-review

Use when pull request review comments, requested changes, or reviewer questions need to be investigated, addressed, or answered.

75

Quality

92%

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

84%

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

A tight, well-sequenced instruction skill that respects the context window and includes explicit validation and destructive-action guards, though it could add a concrete response template.

Suggestions

Add a short response-format template or example mapping a review item to a change and verification result to make step 5 more copy-paste actionable.

Optionally include the concrete git/diff command(s) to use when re-reading the final diff in step 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean body that assumes Claude's competence; no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line directs action.

3 / 3

Actionability

Gives concrete classification categories and explicit 'do/don't' boundaries, but provides no executable commands or templates (e.g., response format, diff/commit commands) for an instruction skill.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with an explicit re-read/validation checkpoint (step 5) and explicit handling of unresolved items and unrun checks, plus a destructive-action guard.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A sub-50-line single-purpose skill with well-organized sections and no need for external references, scoring 3 under the simple-skill note.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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.

A focused, well-constructed description with explicit 'Use when' triggers and concrete, natural-language activation terms specific to pull request review.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists concrete actions ('investigated, addressed, or answered') tied to a specific domain (PR review comments, requested changes, reviewer questions), not vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers what (investigate/address/answer review feedback) and when via an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users say are present ('pull request review comments, requested changes, or reviewer questions'), covering common variations of the trigger.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Narrow PR-review niche with distinct triggers unlikely to overlap with unrelated 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
eloqdata/eloqkv
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.