CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

contrib-pr-review

Review a contribution PR for safety, quality, and readiness. Checks for security concerns, test coverage, size appropriateness, and intent alignment. Use when reviewing external contributions.

66

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 content is highly actionable with executable commands and a well-sequenced, gated review workflow. It loses points on conciseness (repeated security/Codex notes) and progressive disclosure (a single monolithic file with no reference offloading).

Suggestions

Remove the redundant Codex/security notes — state the security-check rule once (step 1) and drop the repetition in step 6 and the "Important Notes" recap.

Extract the lengthy PR-comment drafting templates ("Draft PR Comment" through the examples) into a references file (e.g. comment-templates.md) and link to it, reducing the SKILL.md body and improving progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly executable commands and templates without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it carries genuine redundancy — the Codex/security point is restated in steps 1, 6, and the closing "Important Notes", which could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready `gh api`/`gh pr view` commands with `--jq` filters, runnable bash loops, and explicit output summary templates — no pseudocode or vague direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequenced protocol with explicit if/else decision branches (security gating in step 1, "if safe" conditions in step 2), structured output checklists, and a final user-confirmation gate before posting.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the body references none; everything is inline in one ~290-line file. Section structure is clear, but content that could be offloaded (e.g. the lengthy PR-comment drafting templates) is inline with no one-level-deep references.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

85%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, complete, and well-scoped to external contribution review, with explicit what/when guidance. Trigger-term coverage is the weakest point: it captures the core phrase but omits common user variations like "PR review" or "contributor pull request".

Suggestions

Broaden trigger terms to cover natural user phrasings, e.g. "Use when reviewing a contributor's pull request, checking an external PR, or assessing a first-time contribution."

Consider adding the tool/argument signal (e.g. "Run with a PR number") so users know how to invoke it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete review actions — "Checks for security concerns, test coverage, size appropriateness, and intent alignment" — covering four distinct dimensions rather than vague domain language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states both what it does ("Review a contribution PR for safety, quality, and readiness") and when to use it ("Use when reviewing external contributions."), with an explicit trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms ("reviewing external contributions", "contribution PR") but misses common variations a user might say ("PR review", "contributor pull request", "check this PR"), so coverage is partial.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to a clear niche — external/contribution PRs — with the distinctive trigger "external contributions", making it unlikely to fire for a general code-review skill.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp
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.