code-review

Analyzes code changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance problems, and architectural improvements. Generates structured markdown reports with evidence-based findings tied to specific file:line references, and creates Beads tasks for tracking. Adapts review depth based on scope — from quick pre-commit checks to thorough branch reviews. Use proactively when reviewing code before commits, after implementing features, before PRs, when checking code quality, or when the user mentions "review", "check changes", "code review", "PR review", "review branch", or any code quality assessment.

Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

82%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 highly actionable, well-structured workflow skill with concrete commands and templates throughout. Its main weakness is mild verbosity in the template sections and an implicit rather than explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop at the Quality Gates step.

Suggestions

Make the Quality Gates feedback loop explicit, e.g. 'If type-check or build fails, fix the errors and re-run before proceeding' to lift workflow_clarity toward 5.

Consider moving the full report and summary markdown templates into a references file (e.g. references/report-template.md) and linking to it, reducing body length and improving progressive_disclosure.

Trim the 'Bad finding' illustration and redundant priority-table examples to tighten conciseness without losing the actionable guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and table-driven with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but the report and summary templates add illustrative length that could be trimmed slightly; it sits above the midpoint but not fully lean.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready, executable guidance throughout — concrete git/gh commands, 'pnpm type-check'/'pnpm build' gates, 'bd create' task commands, and full report/summary templates covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 7-step sequence (Scope → Git History → Read & Analyze → Quality Gates → Report → Beads Tasks → Summary) with an explicit Quality Gates validation checkpoint, but the fix-and-retry feedback loop is only implicit rather than spelled out.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clearly headed sections with appropriate inline content and no bundle files to navigate; it is monolithic but the single-file structure is reasonable for a cohesive review workflow, sitting just below the well-signaled-reference anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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, specific description that concretely lists capabilities and provides explicit, natural trigger phrases covering both what the skill does and when to use it. It is distinguishable from other skills and avoids vague fluff.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Analyzes code changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance problems, and architectural improvements', 'Generates structured markdown reports with evidence-based findings tied to specific file:line references', 'creates Beads tasks', 'Adapts review depth based on scope' — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what it does (analyzes, generates reports, creates tasks, adapts depth) and gives an explicit 'Use proactively when reviewing code before commits... or when the user mentions...' trigger clause, satisfying both what and when.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say — 'review', 'check changes', 'code review', 'PR review', 'review branch', 'code quality assessment' — with synonyms and variations, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear code-review niche with distinct triggers ('review', 'check changes', 'PR review', 'review branch') and minimal overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: maslennikov-ig/claude-code-orchestrator-kit
Path: .claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 8c3b576

Reviewed: 6 days 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.