requesting-code-review

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Quality

31%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

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 description is critically weak because it only vaguely describes when to use the skill without ever explaining what the skill actually does. The language is so generic ('completing tasks', 'implementing major features') that it would be nearly impossible for Claude to distinguish this skill from others in a multi-skill environment. It reads more like a partial trigger clause than a complete skill description.

Suggestions

Add a clear 'what' clause describing the concrete actions this skill performs (e.g., 'Runs test suites, checks code coverage, and validates acceptance criteria' or 'Generates a verification checklist and runs automated checks').

Replace vague terms like 'completing tasks' and 'implementing major features' with specific, natural trigger terms users would actually say (e.g., 'run tests', 'check my work', 'validate', 'QA', 'pre-merge check').

Add domain-specific details that distinguish this from other skills—what kind of verification does it perform? What tools or processes does it use?

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague language like 'completing tasks' and 'implementing major features' without specifying any concrete actions. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does—only when to use it.	1 / 3
Completeness	The description answers 'when' in a vague way but completely fails to answer 'what does this do'. There is no indication of the skill's actual capabilities or actions.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The terms 'completing tasks', 'implementing major features', and 'merging' are extremely generic. 'Verify work meets requirements' is slightly more specific but still lacks natural keywords a user would say. There are no domain-specific trigger terms.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	This description is extremely generic and could apply to almost any verification, testing, linting, or review skill. 'Completing tasks' and 'implementing major features' would conflict with virtually every other skill.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

62%

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 solid workflow structure for requesting code reviews with clear sequencing and feedback triage, but falls short on actionability — the core dispatch mechanism is described abstractly rather than with executable specificity. Some sections (Red Flags, obvious behavioral guidance) add tokens without adding value for Claude. The referenced template file is not provided in the bundle, making it harder to evaluate the full experience.

Suggestions

Make the dispatch step fully concrete: show the exact Task tool invocation syntax with all parameters filled in, rather than describing it abstractly.

Remove or significantly trim the 'Red Flags' section — Claude doesn't need to be told not to ignore critical issues or skip reviews.

Include the code-reviewer.md template in the bundle or inline the essential template structure so the skill is self-contained.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary sections like 'Red Flags' with obvious advice ('Never skip review because it's simple', 'Ignore Critical issues') that Claude already knows. The example section is somewhat verbose and could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete git commands for getting SHAs and a clear placeholder template, but the actual dispatch mechanism is vague — 'Use Task tool with superpowers-ruby:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md' lacks executable specificity. The example uses a mix of pseudocode and real commands without being fully copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The three-step workflow (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer → act on feedback) is clearly sequenced with explicit prioritization of feedback types (Critical → Important → Minor). The integration section clearly maps review timing to different workflow contexts, and the feedback triage acts as a validation checkpoint.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References a template at 'requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md' and a plan file, but no bundle files are provided to support these references. The content is reasonably structured with clear sections, but the template reference at the very end feels like an afterthought rather than a well-signaled navigation point integrated into the workflow.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby
Commit: c037ce3

Reviewed: about 19 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.