CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

autofix

Apply approved fixes for unresolved CodeRabbit review comments, Codex P1-P3 findings, PR feedback, and code review issues with validation evidence. Use when asked to address review comments, fix review findings, clear unresolved comments, or autofix PR feedback.

64

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

The risk profile of this skill

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./Skills/agent-ops/autofix/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides a comprehensive framework for handling PR review autofixes with good safety boundaries and clear constraints, but lacks concrete executable examples, specific CLI commands, and output schemas that would make it truly actionable. The workflow is well-sequenced but validation steps are too generic, and the content could be tightened by consolidating overlapping sections (Failure mode, Anti-Patterns, Gotchas partially overlap with Constraints and Execution Boundaries).

Suggestions

Add concrete CLI command examples for CodeRabbit inventory retrieval, GitHub review API fallback calls, and validation commands instead of describing them abstractly.

Provide a concrete example of the expected output structure (JSON schema or sample output) for the inventory/summary, since the Outputs section lists field names without showing format.

Consolidate overlapping sections: merge 'Anti-Patterns', 'Gotchas', and 'Failure mode' into a single 'Pitfalls & Error Handling' section to reduce redundancy and improve token efficiency.

Add an explicit validation feedback loop in the workflow (e.g., 'If validation fails → identify which review item caused the failure → revert or fix → re-validate → only proceed when all gates pass').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably structured but includes some redundancy (e.g., the 'Inputs' and 'Outputs' sections are vague lists that don't add much actionable value, and the Discovery Interview section feels like filler). Some sections like 'Philosophy' and 'When To Use' overlap. However, it generally avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 3

Actionability

The workflow provides a clear sequence of steps and the constraints/boundaries are specific, but there are no concrete code examples, exact CLI commands, or copy-paste-ready snippets. Guidance like 'Inventory CodeRabbit via CodeRabbit CLI/plugin first' lacks the actual command syntax. The Outputs section lists field names but provides no schema or example output structure.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 11-step workflow is well-sequenced and includes a validation section with fail-fast guidance. However, validation steps are generic ('Run the smallest command or test that exercises changed behavior') rather than explicit checkpoints with concrete commands. The failure mode section is good but the feedback loop between validation failure and retry is only implicit, not explicitly structured as a loop.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The Progressive Disclosure section references multiple external files (contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json, discovery-interview.md, cookbook references), which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided to verify these references exist, and the references span multiple directories with somewhat unclear organization. The main content is reasonably organized but some sections (Anti-Patterns, Gotchas, Failure mode) could be consolidated.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

100%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.

This is a strong skill description that clearly defines its purpose, lists concrete actions, includes natural trigger terms, and has an explicit 'Use when' clause. The mention of specific tools (CodeRabbit, Codex) and severity levels (P1-P3) makes it highly distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: applying approved fixes, handling CodeRabbit review comments, Codex P1-P3 findings, PR feedback, and code review issues, with validation evidence. These are concrete, specific capabilities.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (apply approved fixes for unresolved CodeRabbit review comments, Codex P1-P3 findings, PR feedback, and code review issues with validation evidence) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger scenarios).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'review comments', 'fix review findings', 'unresolved comments', 'autofix PR feedback', 'CodeRabbit', 'Codex', 'P1-P3'. These cover common variations of how users would describe this task.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with specific tool names (CodeRabbit, Codex P1-P3), specific workflow context (PR feedback, unresolved review comments), and a clear niche around automated code review fix application. Unlikely to conflict with general coding or review skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jscraik/Agent-Skills
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.