CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review

Perform Fallow's comprehensive pre-merge review. Use after implementation or when asked to review a branch, pull request, or diff.

68

Quality

81%

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

92%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 exemplary lean instruction-only workflow: an unambiguous 8-step sequence with explicit finding-filter criteria, a validation feedback loop, and concrete pointers to the repo's gate and routing documents. Its only limitation is that executable detail lives entirely in referenced repo documents.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean 8-step list plus a two-line closing note with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line ('trace the call site before you accept a bug claim', 'More than about five blocks usually means the filter is too weak') adds non-obvious guidance.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete file pointers ('docs/development/quality-gates.md', 'docs/development/review-routing.md'), explicit classification labels (APPROVE/CONCERN/BLOCK), and specific filtering criteria make the guidance mostly executable, but actual commands and gate selections are delegated to referenced documents rather than given inline. Not 3 because nothing is pseudocode or vague; not 5 because it is not self-contained executable guidance.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 1-8 sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and a feedback loop ('Fix every block, rerun the blocking reviewer, and update verification'), plus a checklist for filtering reviewer findings in step 6. Anti-drift check: score 4 requires minor validation gaps, but the fix-rerun loop and verification updates close the loop.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external bundle files; the body is a well-organized flat numbered list whose references to repo docs are one level deep and clearly signaled by exact path, matching the simple-skill exception for a top score.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 concise, third-person, and correctly structured with an explicit 'Use when'-style trigger clause naming branch, pull request, and diff. Its main weakness is thin capability coverage: it states one action where enumerating two or three concrete review activities would sharpen both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Enumerate 2-3 concrete actions in the 'what' clause (e.g., 'Run quality gates, route reviewers, and classify findings as APPROVE/CONCERN/BLOCK during pre-merge review') to raise specificity from one action to several.

Add common trigger synonyms such as 'PR', 'code review', or 'review my changes' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Drop the filler word 'comprehensive' in favor of the concrete capability list it currently stands in for.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Perform Fallow's comprehensive pre-merge review' names the domain and a single concrete action, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; 'comprehensive' is mild filler rather than enumerated sub-actions. Not 4 because it does not list several specific actions (run gates, route reviewers, classify results) that the body actually contains.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: a clear 'what' ('Perform Fallow's comprehensive pre-merge review') and an explicit 'Use after implementation or when asked to review a branch, pull request, or diff' trigger clause. Not 5 because the 'what' is a single high-level action rather than a concrete multi-action statement; not 3 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'review a branch, pull request, or diff' are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage; missing common synonyms such as 'PR', 'code review', or 'changes'. Not 3 because multiple natural terms are present; not 5 because the synonym/variation coverage is incomplete.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Fallow's', 'pre-merge', and the branch/pull request/diff triggers carve out a mostly distinct niche with minor overlap risk against generic review skills, since 'review' alone is a very broad verb. Not 5 because 'review' could still collide with other code-review-type skills in a broader environment.

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
fallow-rs/fallow
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.