CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-change

Review a proposed code change and its evidence when asked to assess implementation quality.

64

Quality

76%

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 ./internal/adaptertest/testdata/all-agents/want/cursor/files/.cursor/skills/acr__example__all-agents__review-change/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

90%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 lean, executable, and well-sequenced with an explicit output contract, suiting a simple single-task skill. Its main gap is the lack of a failure-recovery loop and an unreferenced REFERENCE.md bundle file.

Suggestions

Add a brief failure branch, e.g. 'If it exits non-zero, read the stderr/diagnostics, fix the underlying issue, and re-run before finishing.'

Either reference references/REFERENCE.md from the body (e.g. 'See references/REFERENCE.md for evidence standards') or remove it from the bundle to keep navigation consistent.

Confirm the script path resolves at the skill's install location; the body points at .cursor/skills/.../scripts/check.sh while the bundle ships scripts/check.sh relative to SKILL.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely lean: a single sequenced instruction, one concrete command with its output contract, and a termination note. Every token earns its place and it assumes Claude's competence.

5 / 5

Actionability

Provides a fully executable command with the exact expected stdout ('{"ok":true}') and failure semantics (exits non-zero), which is copy-paste ready for the single task.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced single step with an explicit validation signal (exit non-zero on failure) and an ordering directive, but no feedback loop describing what to do when the check fails.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to scripts/check.sh; however references/REFERENCE.md exists in the bundle but is never referenced or linked from the body.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 states a purpose and includes an explicit 'when' trigger, but it stops at one or two generic actions and omits common trigger synonyms (PR, diff, patch). It is distinguishable but could be sharper.

Suggestions

Add concrete sub-actions to broaden specificity, e.g. 'Review a proposed code change — assess correctness, verify evidence, and flag gaps.'

Include natural trigger synonyms such as 'pull request', 'PR', 'diff', or 'patch' so users phrasing it those ways land on this skill.

Tighten the 'when' clause to concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when asked to assess implementation quality of a PR, diff, or staged change.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('proposed code change') and 1-2 concrete actions ('Review ... and its evidence'), but coverage is not comprehensive — no mention of what aspects of the change are examined.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (review a proposed code change and its evidence) and 'when' ('when asked to assess implementation quality'); the 'when' clause is present but could be more specific about triggering contexts.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant natural terms ('review a proposed code change', 'assess implementation quality') but misses common synonyms users would say like 'PR', 'pull request', 'diff', or 'patch'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (reviewing a proposed code change with evidence) is mostly distinct from other skills, with only minor overlap risk against general code-review skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jbaruch/agentic-context-registry
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.