review-workflow

Complete quality assurance workflow orchestrating validation, comprehensive review, and functional testing. Sequential workflow from quality gating through multi-dimensional review to scenario testing. Use when conducting complete skill quality assurance, pre-deployment validation, or comprehensive quality checks combining multiple review approaches.

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/review-workflow/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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 QA orchestration workflow with clear sequencing and decision logic. Its main weakness is redundancy: the deployment decision criteria and quick-reference summary restate content already detailed in the step sections.

Suggestions

Collapse the deployment decision logic into a single location and have the Quick Reference link to it instead of restating the matrix three times, to improve conciseness.

Trim or move the 'Best Practices' rationale (one-line 'Practice'/'Rationale' pairs) into a reference file, keeping only the actionable practices inline.

Add concrete invocation guidance or example commands for invoking the three component skills (skill-validator, review-multi, skill-tester) to close the minor actionability gap.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, but the deployment decision matrix is repeated three times (Step outputs, the Make Deployment Decision section, and the Quick Reference matrix) and the Quick Reference restates already-detailed steps, fitting anchor 3 over the tighter 4.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific guidance — named component skills, enumerated validation operations, explicit score thresholds (>=4.5, 4.0-4.4) and grade-to-decision mappings — with only minor gaps such as missing concrete invocation syntax for the component skills.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced validator -> review -> testing workflow with explicit decision points and feedback loops ('If Step 1 fails, fix issues before proceeding', re-run guidance) matching anchor 4, falling short of 5 only because some checkpoints are implicit rather than fully elaborated checklists.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist; the single file is well-organized with clear section headers and navigation tables, but the ~240-line body with inlined deployment matrices and best-practices rationale could be trimmed or split into references, fitting anchor 4 over 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 strong: it specifies a distinct QA-orchestration niche, lists concrete component actions, and provides an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause with natural terms. Minor gains possible from additional synonyms and a slightly more exhaustive action list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the QA domain and several concrete actions ('validation, comprehensive review, and functional testing') with minor gaps in coverage, fitting the 'lists several specific actions' anchor rather than the fully comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (orchestrating validation, review, and testing as a sequential workflow) and 'when' ('Use when conducting complete skill quality assurance, pre-deployment validation...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 5 example.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say ('quality assurance', 'pre-deployment validation', 'comprehensive quality checks') with good coverage, though a few synonyms are missing, matching anchor 4 over 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (complete skill QA orchestration) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills, matching anchor 5; third-person voice used correctly.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz
Path: skills/review-workflow/SKILL.md
Commit: 93ed392

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.