code-reviewer
Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to project standards.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:google-gemini/gemini-cli --skill code-reviewer81
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillAgent success when using this skill
Validation for skill structure
Discovery
75%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description effectively communicates when to use the skill and establishes a clear niche for code review tasks. However, it could be stronger by listing more specific review actions (e.g., 'identify bugs', 'check for security issues') and including additional natural trigger terms users might use.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions like 'identify bugs, suggest improvements, check security issues, verify style compliance' to improve specificity
Include additional natural trigger terms users might say such as 'diff', 'merge request', 'MR', 'code review', 'review my changes'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code review) and mentions some scope (local changes, staged/working tree, remote PRs), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'identify bugs', 'check style violations', or 'suggest refactoring'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what ('review code...focuses on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to project standards') and when ('Use this skill to review code' with specific triggers for local changes and remote PRs). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'review code', 'Pull Requests', 'PR', 'URL', 'staged', but misses common variations users might say like 'code review', 'diff', 'changes', 'merge request', or 'CR'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on code review with distinct triggers (PR by ID/URL, staged changes, working tree). Unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or documentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable code review skill with clear workflows for both local and remote PR scenarios. The main weakness is verbosity in the analysis section, which explains concepts Claude already understands. The structure and executable commands are strengths.
Suggestions
Condense the 'In-Depth Analysis' pillars to a brief checklist rather than explaining each concept (e.g., '- Correctness, Maintainability, Security, Edge cases, Test coverage')
Consider extracting the detailed feedback structure/tone guidelines to a separate REVIEW_FORMAT.md if this skill grows
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., explaining what correctness, maintainability, readability mean). The analysis pillars section could be condensed since Claude understands these concepts. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable commands (gh pr checkout, git diff, npm run preflight) and specific structured output format. The workflow steps are clear and actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequential workflow with numbered steps, explicit branching for remote vs local reviews, and a structured feedback format. The cleanup step includes user confirmation which serves as a checkpoint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but the analysis pillars section is verbose and could be extracted to a reference file. For a skill of this length (~80 lines), some content could be better structured with references. | 2 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.