CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-pr

Review a pull request for hacs_waste_collection_schedule and execute only approved fixes or review actions. Use when the user asks to inspect, fix, approve, or request changes on a PR.

72

Quality

88%

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

93%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 tight, highly actionable PR-review workflow with verbatim prompts, an explicit approval gate, and clear failure handling. The only gap is that the destructive-operation error path halts rather than cycling through a fix-retry loop.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validate-fix-retry loop for failed execution steps (e.g. 'on failure, diagnose, propose a corrected command, re-approve, then retry') to reach the top workflow-clarity anchor for destructive GitHub operations.

Consider a short checklist of pre-execution invariants (clean working tree, correct branch) to harden the multi-agent handoff between pr-reviewer and pr-executor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The 8-step body is lean and imperative with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; even the one rationale clause ('so the policy hook can distinguish it from an unapproved post') earns its place as actionable context, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: verbatim agent-spawn prompts, the exact env-var prefix 'WCS_GITHUB_APPROVED=1', and concrete per-step instructions. As an instruction-only skill whose guidance is actionable, the absence of code is not penalized.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 8 steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit approval checkpoint (step 4) and a re-present-changes loop (step 5), but the destructive GitHub-mutating path stops-and-reports on failure rather than providing a validate-fix-retry feedback loop, leaving a minor validation gap versus the top anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and the numbered workflow is well-organized; per the simple-skills scoring note that is sufficient for the top anchor without separate files or section headers.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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, well-targeted description that clearly states both capability and trigger conditions with natural user phrasing. Its only weakness is specificity: it names the domain and a couple of actions but does not enumerate the concrete review/fix actions comprehensively.

Suggestions

List the concrete review actions performed (e.g. 'inspect diffs, run checks, post review comments, apply approved fixes') to lift specificity from 1-2 actions toward comprehensive coverage.

Include 'review' and 'pull request' alongside 'PR' as explicit trigger synonyms for fuller trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Review a pull request for hacs_waste_collection_schedule') and 1-2 concrete actions ('execute only approved fixes or review actions'), but does not enumerate the actions comprehensively, matching the 1-2-actions anchor rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers both 'what' ('Review a pull request... and execute only approved fixes or review actions') and 'when' ('Use when the user asks to inspect, fix, approve, or request changes on a PR') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Use when the user asks to inspect, fix, approve, or request changes on a PR' provides good natural keyword coverage with several real trigger phrases, though a few common synonyms (e.g. 'review', 'pull request') are not all enumerated, placing it just below comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Repo-specific framing ('hacs_waste_collection_schedule') plus a narrow PR-review/execution niche gives it a clear, distinct trigger surface with minimal conflict risk against generic skills.

5 / 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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
mampfes/hacs_waste_collection_schedule
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.