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.

69

Quality

83%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 lean, highly actionable PR-review methodology with a clearly sequenced workflow, explicit self-correction checkpoints, and well-organized single-file structure that needs no external references.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence throughout — it explains no basic concepts (what a PR or bug is) and every section adds non-obvious methodology or calibration guidance rather than padding, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete, copy-pasteable tool calls (e.g. state.readFile/state.searchFiles with full option objects) and a fully specified output schema (verdict, summary, findings with path/line/side/severity/body), matching the fully-executable anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The method is a clearly numbered sequence (frame, enumerate, verify, go deep, prioritize) with explicit self-correction checkpoints ('drop candidates that turn out fine; do not report hypotheses you couldn't confirm') and a calibration checklist, matching the clear-sequence-with-explicit-validation anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files and no nested references; the skill is a single well-organized file with clear section headers and the only external file (AGENTS.md) is supplied in context rather than linked for navigation, so well-organized sections suffice for a top score.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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, actionable, and clearly distinct, but lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause, which caps completeness and leaves some common trigger-term variations uncovered.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when asked to review a pull request, PR, or code review, or to find bugs and regressions in a diff.') to answer the 'when' half of completeness.

Include common trigger-term variations such as 'PR', 'code review', and 'find issues/regressions' alongside 'pull request' to broaden natural-language coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict' — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions rather than just naming a domain.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance for when to invoke it, so completeness is capped at 2 per the missing-trigger guideline.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural terms a user would say ('pull request', 'review', 'bugs', 'regressions') but misses common variations like 'PR', 'code review', or 'find issues', placing it at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — reviewing one pull request for bugs/regressions/convention violations and returning structured line-anchored findings — is distinct with a clear trigger unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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
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.