CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review

Review one pull request for real bugs, regressions, and convention violations. Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict. Read-only on GitHub; the orchestrator posts the review.

64

Quality

78%

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 ./infra/flue-review/.flue/skills/review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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 a well-structured, actionable, and intelligence-respecting workflow with strong sequencing and self-correction. Minor tightening of rhetoric and a concrete output JSON example would push it higher.

Suggestions

Replace the prose output-schema description with a copy-pasteable JSON example showing verdict, summary, and a findings entry with path/line/side/severity/body.

Trim the most rhetorical/emphatic passages (e.g. the 'flawless implementation of the wrong thing' line and repeated 'don't tag needs_fixing to look thorough' reminders) to recover token budget.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and intelligence-assuming with no padding about basic concepts, but a few rhetorical/emphatic passages (e.g. 'A flawless implementation of the wrong thing is still the wrong thing' and repeated calibration reminders) could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance — exact state.* API calls, the code-call shape, and the output schema fields — but the output schema is described in prose rather than a copy-pasteable JSON block.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequenced method ('frame, enumerate, verify') with explicit self-correction checkpoints ('drop candidates that turn out fine'), a candidate checklist, and a prioritization cull; the read-only task avoids the destructive-cap.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Self-contained single file with clear section headers and no nested bundle references; well-organized, though it is a single longer document rather than split across files.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 distinct with strong natural trigger terms, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps its completeness. Adding a one-line trigger condition would round it out.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when asked to review a pull request or when the user wants a PR checked for bugs and regressions.'

Include common synonyms like 'PR' or 'code review' alongside 'pull request' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff', 'verify each against the code', 'return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict' — giving comprehensive coverage of the review lifecycle.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'pull request', 'bugs', 'regressions', 'diff', 'findings', and 'verdict' match what users say, though a few common synonyms (e.g. 'PR', 'code review') are absent and there is no explicit trigger clause.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PR-review niche with line-anchored findings, a verdict, and read-only GitHub is clearly distinct with minimal overlap risk against other skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
emdash-cms/emdash
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.