CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review

Use when the user asks to review CURRENT uncommitted changes (staged, unstaged, branch diff) before committing, or to synthesize JiT tests against the diff — QA + lead-engineer verdict on quality, architecture, cleanup. Needs a diff, not old commits.

61

Quality

77%

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/flowai/skills/review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 an exceptionally actionable, rigorously validated workflow — concrete commands, explicit thresholds, gates, and a verification checklist — but it is delivered as a verbose ~200-line monolith. Long anti-drift narrative justifications and the absence of any reference-file split cost it on conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Trim or relocate the narrative justifications: convert passages like "This step goes missing in the same way every time…" and the multi-paragraph post-verdict essay in step 10 into one-line rules, moving the rationale to a reference file if it must be kept.

Split the self-contained subsystems into one-level-deep reference files (e.g. references/jit-testing.md for the mutant/catching-test synthesis and dual-run filter, references/delegation.md for the parallel-delegation protocol), leaving SKILL.md as an overview with well-signaled pointers.

Compress the repeated degradation-note mandates (Rules 10/11 re-explained at length inside steps 3, 8a, 10, 11) into a single stated convention referenced from each step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~200-line body is noticeably verbose: long narrative justifications are inlined as case law ("A command that never ran has not failed", "This step goes missing in the same way every time: the report reads finished…", the multi-paragraph post-verdict essay in step 10, the extended anti-drift digressions in step 3's delegation rules). Several sections re-explain why a rule exists and how it gets violated rather than just stating the rule. Not 1 because genuine operational content (commands, thresholds, exact report templates) is present throughout.

2 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact commands ("git worktree add <SCRATCH>/jit-parent-<sid> <parent-sha>", "grep -qE '^\.flowai/(\*|$)' .gitignore", "git log -1 --pretty=%B", manifest detection mapping deno.json/package.json/Makefile/pyproject.toml/go.mod to commands), precise thresholds (≤5 intents, ≤3 risks, ≤15 mutants, 50-line small-diff cutoff, 30 s kill-rate budget), explicit error taxonomy (exit 127 = not runnable, not failed), and a complete copy-paste report template. Common cases are covered with specific commands.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Eleven sequenced steps with labeled sub-steps, explicit blocking gates (4a FR coverage, 4b existing-suite, Rule 13), validation checkpoints at every stage (empty diff guard, parent-baseline green check, dual-run + filter ensemble with flaky/duplicate/zero-kill filters, first-match-wins verdict ordering), feedback loops (fallback rules, Degradation Notes), and a closing verification checklist. The branching (JiT enable/disable conditions) is explicitly specified rather than implicit.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist — the entire skill is one SKILL.md. Section headers (<rules>, <step_by_step>, <verification>) provide structure, but substantial content that clearly belongs in separate reference files (JiT mutant/catching-test synthesis details, the parallel-delegation protocol, the FR coverage audit rules) is fully inlined. Matches the anchor "some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline"; not 4 because there is no split or navigation to deeper material at all.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 solid description with an explicit, concrete trigger clause, a stated output (QA + lead-engineer verdict), and a clear boundary against reviewing old commits. Its weaknesses are compressed, jargon-dependent phrasing ("JiT tests", "synthesized ephemeral Catching JiTTests") and missing common synonyms such as "code review".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes several concrete actions — "review CURRENT uncommitted changes (staged, unstaged, branch diff)", "synthesize JiT tests against the diff", "QA + lead-engineer verdict on quality, architecture, cleanup" — with only minor gaps. Not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive and "JiT tests" is undefined jargon that leaves the core capability opaque; not 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly named.

4 / 5

Completeness

The when is explicit and concrete ("Use when the user asks to review CURRENT uncommitted changes… before committing") and the what is stated ("QA + lead-engineer verdict on quality, architecture, cleanup"), plus a boundary ("Needs a diff, not old commits"). Not 5 because the what is compressed and jargon-laden ("JiT tests", "lead-engineer verdict") rather than clearly enumerating what the skill does.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present: "review", "uncommitted changes", "staged", "unstaged", "branch diff", "before committing", "diff". Not 5 because common variants users would say ("code review", "check my changes", "pre-commit review") are absent; not 3 because the included keyword set goes well beyond a couple of generic terms.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Needs a diff, not old commits" and "CURRENT uncommitted changes" carve a distinct niche (pre-commit diff review) away from commit-history or whole-project review skills. Not 5 because generic phrasings like "review my code" could still overlap other code-review skills; not 3 because the explicit diff boundary materially reduces overlap.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

korchasa/flowai-plugins

Path

plugins/flowai/skills/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.