CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

panel-majority-vote

Runs 3 isolated reviewer sub-agents; consolidates PASS/BLOCK verdict by majority. Use when user requests independent review of code changes, pull requests, design documents, or release notes.

75

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

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

This is a well-structured skill with clear workflow sequencing, good progressive disclosure, and efficient use of tokens. Its main weakness is incomplete actionability around the subagent spawning mechanism—the most critical step (step 2) lacks a concrete, executable example of the `runSubagent` call and prompt construction. The bash consolidation example is helpful but the deduplication/annotation logic remains abstract.

Suggestions

Add a concrete, executable example of the `runSubagent` invocation in step 2, showing the actual prompt structure and parameters passed to each reviewer.

Provide a brief code snippet or pseudocode for the deduplication and '(N/3 reviewers)' annotation logic in step 4, rather than just describing it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is lean and efficient. It avoids explaining what code review is, what majority voting means, or other concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a clear purpose with no padding or unnecessary context.

3 / 3

Actionability

The procedure is fairly concrete with specific file paths, output sections, and a bash example for counting verdicts. However, the critical step 2 (spawning subagents via `runSubagent`) lacks executable detail—no example of the actual subagent invocation or prompt template is provided. The consolidation logic is partially shown in bash but the deduplication/annotation step is described rather than demonstrated.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step procedure is clearly sequenced with explicit validation (step 1 validates scope), a hard gate at step 7 for logging/verification, and clear error recovery guidance (on BLOCK: change work and re-run; after 3 BLOCKs: dispute protocol). The feedback loop for BLOCK verdicts is well-defined.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill provides a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to related resources (panel-report.template.md, REFERENCE.md for weighted variant, observability-logging skill, team-lead-reference skill). Content is appropriately split between the main procedure and referenced materials.

3 / 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.

This is a strong description that concisely communicates a unique multi-agent review mechanism with clear trigger conditions. It uses third person voice, lists concrete actions, includes natural trigger terms, and has an explicit 'Use when' clause covering multiple relevant artifact types. The description is distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with simpler review or analysis skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Runs 3 isolated reviewer sub-agents', 'consolidates PASS/BLOCK verdict by majority'. These are precise, concrete mechanisms describing what the skill does.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (runs 3 isolated reviewer sub-agents, consolidates PASS/BLOCK verdict by majority) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause specifying independent review of code changes, pull requests, design documents, or release notes).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural keywords users would say: 'review', 'code changes', 'pull requests', 'design documents', 'release notes', 'independent review'. These cover common variations of how users would request this functionality.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive due to the specific mechanism (3 isolated sub-agents, majority verdict) and the 'independent review' framing. This is unlikely to conflict with a simple code review skill or a general document analysis skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
monkilabs/opencastle
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.