CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review

Use when asked to review code, review a branch, or do a code review. Spawns Breaker (correctness) and API Analyst (compatibility/conventions) sub-agents while the orchestrator reviews architecture, tests, performance, and security.

76

Quality

96%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a dense, operational workflow with executable commands, explicit validation gates, and a copy-paste report template — strong on actionability and workflow clarity. Its weakness is progressive disclosure: nearly everything is inline in one long file and the one external reference (api-conventions.md) is not bundled.

Suggestions

Move the Breaker and API Analyst persona definitions (the mindset bullet lists) into a referenced file such as references/personas.md and link to it, keeping SKILL.md a lean overview.

Verify and bundle the referenced api-conventions.md (e.g., under references/) — the path '.claude/skills/review/api-conventions.md' points outside the skill directory and the file is absent, which would break the API Analyst sub-agent prompt at runtime.

Extract the full report template and the severity/classification tables into a referenced file (e.g., references/report-format.md) to reduce inline bulk and improve navigation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Quotes operational content like 'git fetch origin main && git log origin/main..HEAD --oneline && git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD' and '[SEVERITY] file:line — description — suggested fix'; it assumes Claude's competence (no git/distributed-systems primers) and every section is actionable rather than padded, matching 'Lean and efficient; every token earns its place'; not 2 because it avoids explanatory filler Claude already knows.

3 / 3

Actionability

Quotes concrete executable commands ('git diff origin/main...HEAD -- <file1> <file2> ...', 'git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD | grep -E \.api\.md$') and a full copy-paste report template; guidance is fully executable and specific, matching 'Fully executable code/commands; copy-paste ready'.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Quotes a 9-step sequence with explicit checkpoints — 'Empty diff gate: Zero changed files -> report ... and stop', 'Size gate: >10,000 lines changed -> ask user to narrow scope', and the 'High-confidence gate' four-point checklist; feedback loops (dedup/classify, re-validate, evidence gate) are present, matching 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps'.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Quotes 'cat .claude/skills/review/api-conventions.md' as a one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference, but the skill is otherwise a monolithic single file with personas, the full report template, and severity tables inline, and the referenced api-conventions.md is not present in the bundle; matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'; not 3 because split-worthy content stays inline and the reference target is missing.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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 is concise, third-person, and explicit: it states concrete capabilities (Breaker, API Analyst, orchestrator areas) and gives clear 'Use when' triggers covering natural user phrasings. It answers both what and when without fluff or over-claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes 'Spawns Breaker (correctness) and API Analyst (compatibility/conventions) sub-agents while the orchestrator reviews architecture, tests, performance, and security' — multiple concrete, specific actions are named, matching the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions'; not 2 because it enumerates concrete review activities rather than just naming a domain.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicit 'Use when asked to review code, review a branch, or do a code review' answers when, and the sub-agent/orchestrator breakdown answers what; both are explicit, matching 'Clearly answers both what AND when with explicit triggers'; not 2 because when is explicit rather than implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes 'review code, review a branch, or do a code review' — natural phrasings a user would actually say, with good variation; matches 'Good coverage of natural terms users would say' and is not missing common variations like anchor 2.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The code/branch review niche has distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; voice is third person ('Spawns', 'the orchestrator reviews'), so no specificity penalty applies; matches 'Clear niche with distinct triggers'.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
microsoft/FluidFramework
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.