CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

he-code-review

Review PRs, branches, diffs, and workflow artifacts for package-level go/no-go readiness with severity-ranked synthesis. Use when users need readiness synthesis rather than detailed technical-risk critique.

Quality

78%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/budget-archive/2026-04-21/deferred-store/skills/code_quality_review/he-code-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 content is an instruction-only skill with genuinely actionable elements — a concrete lint command, explicit go/no-go gates, and a clear stop condition. It is held back by noticeable redundancy across sections (the same constraints restated 2-3 times) and a References section whose paths do not resolve within the bundle while the actual bundle reference goes unlinked.

Suggestions

De-duplicate repeated guidance: state the read-focused rule, the CI-alone caveat, and security-ops routing once each instead of across Core Contract, Constraints, Anti-patterns, and Gotchas.

Fix the References section: use relative paths that resolve in the bundle, and link references/context-preservation.md from the 'Context disposition' paragraph instead of referencing an unlabeled policy.

Expand Procedure step 2 with how to build the evidence pack (e.g., which commands or sources produce the diff/check/thread evidence) and add a fix-and-revalidate loop for findings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but repeats itself: "Keep broad review(s) read-focused unless an explicit mode permits (mutation)" appears in both Core Contract and Constraints; CI-alone-is-not-readiness appears in both Anti-patterns ("Treating CI alone as merge readiness") and Gotchas ("Do not treat passing CI alone as merge readiness"); routing to security-ops appears three times (Deliverables, Validation, Gotchas); and the "Context disposition" paragraph is meta-policy that earns little. It could be tightened, matching the 3 anchor rather than 4's 'minor instances'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance is present: an executable command ("run `python3 Infrastructure/scripts/validation-and-linting/he_linear_traceability_lint.py <artifact-path>`"), an explicit verdict taxonomy ("go", "go-with-conditions", "no-go"), severity labels ("P0"-"P3"), and explicit go-blocker conditions. Minor gaps remain — "Build an evidence pack from diff/base, changed files, checks, validations, review threads..." enumerates sources but not how to gather them — fitting the 4 anchor rather than fully executable 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 3-step Procedure is sequenced, and the Validation section supplies explicit checkpoints ("Block `go` for unresolved P0/P1...", "run ... he_linear_traceability_lint.py ... before returning a `go` verdict", "Stop at the first failed gate") plus a Failure mode section, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply. Not 5 because step 2 ("Build the evidence pack") underspecifies how, and there is no fix-and-retry feedback loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and the References section signals one-level-deep pointers, but judged against the actual bundle it misfires: none of the listed paths ("Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/.../SKILL.full.md", "references/codex-review-flow.md", etc.) exist in this bundle, they use repo-absolute rather than relative paths, and the one real bundle file (references/context-preservation.md) is never linked from the body. Some structure present but organization gaps, matching the 3 anchor.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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 explicitly states what the skill does and when to use it, differentiates itself from detailed critique skills, and carries good natural trigger terms. Weaknesses are minor — some natural synonyms (merge/release readiness, pull request) are absent and 'review' as the lead verb is broad.

Suggestions

Add natural synonyms like 'merge readiness', 'release go/no-go', or 'pull request' to broaden trigger coverage.

Replace the generic lead verb 'Review' with more distinctive actions like 'Assess readiness of' to reduce overlap with generic code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Review PRs, branches, diffs, and workflow artifacts for package-level go/no-go readiness with severity-ranked synthesis" names the domain and several concrete actions (review targets, go/no-go verdict, severity-ranked findings). It falls below the 5 anchor because coverage is not comprehensive — evidence gathering and traceability verification are only implied, and "review" itself is a generic verb.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — "Review PRs, branches, diffs, and workflow artifacts for package-level go/no-go readiness with severity-ranked synthesis"; when — "Use when users need readiness synthesis rather than detailed technical-risk critique." Both are present and concrete with trigger phrases, matching the 5 anchor; not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific rather than vague or merely implied.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say: "PRs, branches, diffs", "go/no-go", "readiness". Missing common variations such as "code review", "merge readiness", "release readiness", or "pull request", so it fits the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than the 5 anchor's synonym/extension completeness.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The contrast clause "rather than detailed technical-risk critique" carves a clear niche versus detailed review skills. However "Review PRs, branches, diffs" overlaps heavily with generic code-review skills — a user saying 'review this PR' could trigger either — so minor overlap risk keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

jscraik/Agent-Skills

Path

Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/budget-archive/2026-04-21/deferred-store/skills/code_quality_review/he-code-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.