python-code-review
Python code review guidelines (security, performance, bugs, style). Auto-loads when reviewing Python code or analyzing code quality.
79
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/python-experts/skills/python-code-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
67%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 is a functional description that clearly communicates its purpose and includes explicit trigger conditions. However, it relies on category labels (security, performance, bugs, style) rather than concrete actions, and the trigger terms could be expanded to capture more natural user phrasings. The Python-specific focus provides some distinctiveness but could be strengthened.
Suggestions
Replace category labels with specific actions: 'Identifies SQL injection, detects performance bottlenecks, flags unused variables, enforces PEP 8 style'
Expand trigger terms to include natural variations: 'PR review', 'lint', '.py files', 'refactor', 'code smell'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Python code review) and lists categories of actions (security, performance, bugs, style), but doesn't describe concrete specific actions like 'identify SQL injection vulnerabilities' or 'detect memory leaks'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (Python code review guidelines covering security, performance, bugs, style) and when (Auto-loads when reviewing Python code or analyzing code quality) with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'Python', 'code review', 'code quality', but missing common variations users might say like 'PR review', 'lint', 'refactor', 'clean up code', or file extensions like '.py'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Specific to Python which helps, but 'code review' and 'code quality' are broad terms that could overlap with general code review skills or language-agnostic linting tools. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
79%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, actionable code review skill with excellent concrete examples showing vulnerable vs. safe patterns. The content is concise and assumes Claude's competence. Main weaknesses are the monolithic structure (could benefit from splitting framework-specific content into separate files) and lack of explicit review workflow steps beyond the final checklist.
Suggestions
Consider splitting framework-specific sections (Django, FastAPI, Celery) into separate referenced files to improve progressive disclosure
Add an explicit review workflow at the beginning describing the sequence: security scan → logic bugs → performance → framework-specific → test coverage
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is highly token-efficient, using code examples to demonstrate patterns without explaining basic Python concepts. Every section provides direct, actionable patterns without unnecessary preamble. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable code examples throughout, showing both vulnerable/incorrect and safe/correct patterns side-by-side. Code is copy-paste ready and covers real-world scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The checklist at the end provides a clear review workflow, but the skill lacks explicit validation steps or feedback loops for the review process itself. It's more of a reference than a guided workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but it's a monolithic document with no references to external files for detailed topics. The mention of 'python-style' skill is good, but advanced topics like Django/FastAPI/Celery could be split into separate files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- jpoutrin/product-forge
- Commit
0ebe7ae
- 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.