CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

codex-review

Review local dirty changes, committed branches, and PR diffs with Codex CLI; report findings, validation, blockers, and merge-readiness evidence. Use when the user asks for Codex review, autoreview, independent model review, or pre-ship validation.

Quality

92%

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

96%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.

A dense, high-quality instructional body: fully executable commands, an explicitly sequenced procedure with validation gates, feedback loops, and stop conditions, and disciplined token efficiency. The single weakness is progressive disclosure — the overview names most references precisely, but a handful of bundled reference files are gestured at rather than linked, leaving them harder to discover.

Suggestions

In Gotchas, replace "Gitcrawl, and security-suppression edge cases live in references" with the exact filenames: references/gitcrawl-recovery.md and references/security-auditability.md.

Link references/review-output-classification.md from Procedure step 3, where findings are classified as accepted/rejected/blocked, so the classification rules are discoverable.

Point the Validation section's "smoke eval" and the audit checks at their concrete sources (references/evals.yaml) so the eval suite is reachable from the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is uniformly lean and imperative — "Verify each finding from source and classify it as accepted, rejected, or blocked", "Fail closed on ambiguous finding output" — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It matches the 'every token earns its place' anchor; the telegraphic density is maximal token efficiency, not verbosity.

5 / 5

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready throughout: "codex review --uncommitted", "codex review --base <base>", "codex review --commit <ref>", and the helper invocation "--mode commit --commit HEAD", with the Examples section covering the three common target cases. This matches the 'fully executable; specific examples cover the common cases' anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Procedure is a clear numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints ("Rerun focused validation and rerun review after review-triggered code changes"), an explicit stop condition ("Stop when the final helper/review run exits 0 with no accepted/actionable findings"), fail-fast validation gates, and a dedicated Failure Mode section for error recovery — matching the top anchor with feedback loops and recovery paths.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep named pointers (references/discovery-interview.md, references/target-selection.md, references/helper-behavior.md, references/validation-matrix.md, references/preserved-behavior.md), all present in the bundle. It is not a 5 because several bundle files — references/review-output-classification.md, references/gitcrawl-recovery.md, references/security-auditability.md, references/evals.yaml, references/task-profile.json — are only alluded to ("Gitcrawl, and security-suppression edge cases live in references") without exact filenames, a minor navigation gap matching the 4 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong description: it states a multi-part what (review dirty work, branches, and PR diffs via Codex CLI, then report findings, validation, blockers, and merge-readiness evidence) and an explicit Use-when clause with natural, tool-specific trigger terms. Its only weaknesses are unmentioned trigger synonyms and the omission of the verify-and-patch half of the workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions and outputs — "Review local dirty changes, committed branches, and PR diffs with Codex CLI; report findings, validation, blockers, and merge-readiness evidence" — which matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of the 5 anchor because the skill also verifies and patches findings before rerunning review, and none of that workflow half is stated.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: the what ("Review local dirty changes, committed branches, and PR diffs with Codex CLI; report findings, validation, blockers, and merge-readiness evidence") and the when ("Use when the user asks for Codex review, autoreview, independent model review, or pre-ship validation"), matching the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Codex review, autoreview, independent model review, or pre-ship validation" are phrasings a user would naturally say, giving good keyword coverage. Not a 5 because common natural variants like "diff review", "review my branch/PR", or "second opinion" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Codex CLI framing and Codex-specific triggers give it a clear niche, but "independent model review" and "pre-ship validation" could overlap with generic code-review or validation skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than the minimal-conflict 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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

jscraik/Agent-Skills

Path

Skills/agent-ops/codex-review/SKILL.md

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.