CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

factory-rereview

Re-review a pull request after a push — reconcile the previous review against the new commits, look for new defects the push introduced, then a fresh pass over the whole PR, and finish with a verdict on the PR

64

Quality

81%

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

81%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.

An exceptionally actionable, well-sequenced procedural skill: copy-paste commands, explicit gates, and genuine feedback loops at every risky step. Its weaknesses are verbosity — repeated policies and over-long monolithic paragraphs — and inline detail that could be split out for easier navigation.

Suggestions

Deduplicate repeated policy statements (e.g. 'a push does not launder its own contents', credential stripping) by stating each once and cross-referencing the section.

Split the Phase 4 test-check bullet into labeled sub-steps (environment prep, publish in-progress, execute, publish result, drift handling) to match the structure of the other phases.

Move stable templates (the test-report comment structure, the published-body skeleton) into a reference file loaded on demand, keeping SKILL.md's core workflow leaner.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with operational instruction and contains no concept-explainer filler, but it can be tightened: 'a push does not launder its own contents' appears twice, credential-stripping instructions are restated across sections, and Phase 4's test-check bullet is a single multi-hundred-word paragraph mixing planning, publishing, drift checks, and fallbacks. Anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but could be tightened') fits better than 4, whose 'minor instances' understates the repetition.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: exact gh commands with --json/--jq filters ('gh api .../reviews --paginate --jq ".[] | select(.user.login == \"<factory-app>[bot]\") | {state, submitted_at, body}"'), credential-stripped test commands ('env -u GH_TOKEN -u GITHUB_TOKEN pnpm --filter <pkg> test'), exact body-file paths, verdict-line gates, and fallback procedures. Placeholders are only where runtime values must be substituted. Matches anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the body-file gate before posting, the head-not-moved check with re-verification on drift, the in-run cross-check with a single re-run-and-retry on mismatch, the rejected-verdict retry loop, and the mandatory adversarial check before every approve. This is exactly anchor 5's 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops'.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has no bundle of its own and delegates category guidance one level deep to the factory-review skill's references/categories/README.md and references/archaeology.md with exact load instructions — clearly signaled. Sections are well-organized with headers, but long procedural detail (the test-report format spec, author-identity misconfiguration handling) is inlined monolithically, leaving minor organization gaps — anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

73%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 specific, natural-voiced description that names the full re-review workflow with domain-appropriate synonyms. Its one real gap is the missing 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 and leaves the 'when' only weakly implied by 'after a push'.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when re-reviewing a PR after the author pushes new commits, when a prior review exists, or when asked to re-check a PR after changes.'

Name the operational outcomes that complete the picture — publishing the verdict on the PR and recording it on the work item — so the 'what' is comprehensive, not just the review passes.

Differentiate the trigger vocabulary further from the sibling first-review skill (e.g. lead with 're-review' / 're-review after a push') to reduce overlap risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists four concrete actions — 'reconcile the previous review against the new commits', 'look for new defects the push introduced', 'a fresh pass over the whole PR', 'finish with a verdict on the PR' — in imperative third-person voice. Matches anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 because operational outcomes like publishing the verdict and its gating conditions go unnamed.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is fully explicit (reconcile prior review, hunt push-introduced defects, fresh pass, verdict), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; 'after a push' only weakly implies the 'when'. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural terms for the domain: 're-review', 'pull request' with synonym 'PR', 'push', 'new commits', 'previous review', 'verdict' — exactly the phrasing a user would say when needing this skill, including synonym coverage. Not 4: no common natural variation is missing for this niche.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (re-review after a push, reconciling a previous review) is distinct from a first-review skill, and the trigger 'after a push' is distinguishing. Not 5: it must coexist with the closely related factory-review skill sharing 'review', 'pull request', and 'verdict' vocabulary, giving minor overlap risk — anchor 4.

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, 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

mastra-ai/mastra

Path

mastracode/factory/factory-skills/factory-rereview/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.