CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

reviewer-protocol

Reviewer rejection workflow and strict lockout semantics

56

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.copilot/skills/reviewer-protocol/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is reviewer-protocol in FritzAndFriends/BlazorWebFormsComponents

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.

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable instruction skill with explicit enforcement checkpoints, feedback loops, and worked examples covering the common cases including edge cases like deadlock and misassigned fix agents. Its main weakness is redundancy — the lockout rules are stated three times across Patterns, Semantics, and Anti-Patterns — which inflates length without adding information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The same rules are restated three times (Patterns, Strict Lockout rules 1-3, and again as Anti-Patterns), e.g. 'The Coordinator MUST enforce this... does NOT get to self-revise' versus 'The original author is locked out' versus 'Allowing the original author to self-revise after rejection' — mostly efficient but could be meaningfully tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: exact coordinator refusal scripts ('Fenster is locked out as the original author. Please name a different agent.') and step-by-step examples covering reassign, escalate, deadlock, and misassignment cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are explicit with real checkpoints and feedback loops: pre-spawn verification ('the Coordinator MUST verify that the selected agent is NOT the original author'), a refuse-and-ask loop when the reviewer names the original author, and deadlock escalation to the user as error recovery.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (Context, Patterns, Examples, Anti-Patterns) with no external references needed, but at roughly 70 lines the body exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception and the duplicated Patterns/Lockout material could be merged or split.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 is terse and names a specific niche, but it reads as a label rather than a capability statement: it has no action verbs, no 'when to use' trigger clause, and no natural trigger phrases. It communicates the domain but not when Claude should invoke the skill.

Suggestions

Rewrite as third-person action statements, e.g. 'Enforces reviewer rejection workflows: reassigns rejected work to a different agent and locks out the original author from revising.'

Add a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases such as 'Use when a reviewer rejects an agent's work, when reassigning revisions, or when handling review deadlocks in multi-agent orchestration.'

Include common synonyms users would actually say (approve, reject, code review, feedback loop, self-revision) to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Reviewer rejection workflow and strict lockout semantics') but is composed of noun phrases with no concrete actions, matching the 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' anchor.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is reasonably clear, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or any trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Reviewer', 'rejection', and 'lockout' are relevant keywords, but common natural variations users would say ('approve', 'code review', 'feedback', 'revise') are missing, so keyword coverage is only partial.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The orchestration-specific topic is a fairly clear niche with low overlap risk, but without explicit triggers it could still be confused with general code-review or feedback skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
microsoft/waza
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.