CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-duplication

Use this skill during code reviews to proactively investigate the codebase for duplicated functionality, reinvented wheels, or failure to reuse existing project best practices and shared utilities.

60

Quality

68%

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 ./.gemini/skills/review-duplication/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 workflow is well-structured and highly actionable, with concrete paths, naming patterns, delegation templates, and a model review comment. Main weaknesses are some over-explanatory prose and the absence of an explicit verification checkpoint before posting feedback.

Suggestions

Trim explanations of what sub-agents are optimized for and other Claude-known context to tighten token efficiency.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint in Step 5, e.g., 'Confirm the cited symbol actually exists and is reusable before posting the comment.'

Move the long example review comment into a short 'Example comment' reference or trim it so the core workflow stays lean.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly directive but includes unnecessary explanation Claude already knows (e.g., sub-agents 'are optimized to perform deep searches and semantic mapping without bloating your session history') and mild padding like 'Look beyond the specific business logic to see the underlying mechanics', matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete search vectors (absolute paths, naming patterns like *Format*/*Debounce*, explicit sub-agent prompt templates) and a copy-paste example review comment make the guidance actionable; it stops short of fully covering common cases with more worked examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five numbered steps are clearly sequenced with role-specific delegation guidance and a feedback-formation step; it lacks an explicit verify-before-posting checkpoint, leaving a minor validation gap rather than the explicit feedback loops of the top anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single cohesive, well-sectioned SKILL.md with no bundle files and no need for external references is appropriately organized; at slightly over 50 lines it is not the textbook simple-skill case for a top score, so it sits at 'good structure, minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 clearly conveys a focused code-review niche with a reasonable what-and-when framing and natural trigger terms. It is held back by a single-action specificity and missing common synonyms like 'DRY' or 'copy-paste'.

Suggestions

List a couple more concrete actions (e.g., 'flag reinvented utilities, suggest reusable symbols, map new code to existing patterns') to lift specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Add natural synonyms users say ('duplicate code', 'DRY violations', 'copy-paste', 'reinventing the wheel') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Make the 'when' clause more explicit, e.g., 'Use during code reviews when new code adds utilities, components, or logic that may already exist in the project.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (code review duplication) and the single concrete action 'investigate the codebase for duplicated functionality, reinvented wheels, or failure to reuse', but does not list multiple distinct actions, fitting the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' level above.

3 / 5

Completeness

It states both what (investigate for duplication/reuse) and when ('Use this skill during code reviews'), but the trigger could be more explicit with concrete user-facing phrases, matching the 'both what and when, when could be more explicit' anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'code reviews', 'duplicated functionality', and 'reinvented wheels' appear, giving good keyword coverage; common synonyms such as 'duplicate code', 'DRY', or 'copy-paste' are missing, so it stops short of comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The duplication/reuse niche is mostly distinct with clear triggers, though it has minor overlap risk with general code-review skills rather than minimal conflict.

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
google-gemini/gemini-cli
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.