CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

62

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Failed to scan

The risk profile of this skill

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 body is a well-structured, actionable readiness-review skill with explicit validation gates and concrete routing. Its weaknesses are cross-section repetition and a References section that points to non-bundle paths while the real bundle file goes unreferenced.

Suggestions

Deduplicate guidance shared across Core Contract, Constraints, Anti-patterns, and Gotchas (e.g., the read-focused rule and the CI-as-readiness warning) so each point lives in one place.

Reconcile the References section with the actual bundle: either reference references/context-preservation.md where context-disposition is invoked, or relink the external Plugins/... paths to verifiable relative bundle paths.

Tighten the three-step Procedure so each step maps to the Validation gates and add a brief fix-and-retry loop instead of only "Stop at the first failed gate."

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean and assumes Claude's intelligence, but it repeats the same guidance across sections ("Keep broad reviews read-focused" in Core Contract and Constraints; "Do not treat passing CI alone as merge readiness" in both Anti-patterns and Gotchas), which is more than minor padding; not a 2 because the prose itself is not verbose or explanatory of known concepts.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides a concrete executable command ("python3 Infrastructure/scripts/validation-and-linting/he_linear_traceability_lint.py <artifact-path>"), explicit routing targets (he-work, autofix, security-ops), and a P0-P3 severity framework; not a 5 because the three-step Procedure remains high-level ("Build the evidence pack from diff, checks, validation, and review threads") without exact mechanics.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence (Resolve -> Build evidence -> Rank and emit verdict) is paired with explicit validation gates ("Block go for unresolved P0/P1...", "Stop at the first failed gate", run the traceability lint before a go); not a 5 because there is no fix-and-retry feedback loop and the Procedure steps do not map 1:1 onto the Validation gates.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and a References section signals external files, but per the bundle structure the body references six paths under Plugins/harness-engineering/... that are not present in the bundle, while the one actual bundle file (references/context-preservation.md) is never referenced; not a 4 because the referenced paths are unverifiable and orphaned relative to the real bundle.

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.

The description is concise, third-person, and answers both what and when with concrete trigger terms and a clear niche. Its main limitation is slightly jargon-heavy trigger phrasing and a narrow action vocabulary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("Review PRs, branches, diffs, and workflow artifacts") and concrete outputs ("package-level go/no-go readiness with severity-ranked synthesis"), listing several specific actions with only minor coverage gaps; not a 5 because the action verbs are essentially one (review) plus an output format rather than a comprehensive action list.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly states what ("Review PRs, branches, diffs, and workflow artifacts for package-level go/no-go readiness with severity-ranked synthesis") and when ("Use when users need readiness synthesis rather than detailed technical-risk critique") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms like "PRs", "branches", "diffs", and "go/no-go" appear with a "Use when users need readiness synthesis" trigger; not a 5 because "readiness synthesis" and "technical-risk critique" lean jargon-heavy and common phrasings like "should I merge this" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "package-level go/no-go readiness" framing and the explicit contrast "rather than detailed technical-risk critique" carve a distinct niche from general code-review skills; not a 5 because "Review PRs, branches, diffs" still overlaps with broader review skills.

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

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.