code-standards

Code quality standards and style guide for reviewing pull requests

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./templates/template-github-review-agent/workspace/skills/code-standards/SKILL.md

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.

The content is a tight, actionable four-step review process with a clear output format and a single well-signaled external reference. Its only gap is the lack of an explicit verification step for review findings.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line is actionable review guidance.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, specific instruction (e.g. "Functions... < 50 lines preferred", "Flag `var` usage") with no vague direction; as an instruction-only skill, the absence of code is not penalized.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence plus an output format is present, but there is no explicit validation/verification checkpoint for the review findings.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized sections with a single one-level-deep reference to a real file (references/style-guide.md), appropriate for a skill under 50 lines.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Description

52%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 clearly states the skill's purpose but is generic on actions and omits any explicit "when to use" trigger. It is reasonably distinctive but could be confused with general code-review skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing a pull request for code quality, style, or maintainability.'

List 1-2 concrete actions such as 'flags logic bugs, style violations, and lint issues' to raise specificity.

Include synonyms like 'code review' or 'PR review' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Code quality standards and style guide for reviewing pull requests" names the domain but lists no concrete actions, matching the anchor for minimal/generic actions rather than the multi-action level.	2 / 5
Completeness	It gives a clear "what" (code quality standards and style guide) but no "Use when..." trigger clause, which the rubric caps at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "code quality," "style guide," and "reviewing pull requests" are natural user terms, though synonyms like "code review" or "PR review" are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It is somewhat specific to pull-request review but still overlaps broadly with general code-review skills, matching the anchor for moderate overlap risk.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

81%

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 — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Repository: mastra-ai/mastra
Path: templates/template-github-review-agent/workspace/skills/code-standards/SKILL.md
Commit: 3b0d190

Reviewed: 5 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.