CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-pr

Use when reviewing a pull request - security-focused review following repo agent guidance for breaking changes, malicious patterns, and backward compatibility

Quality

80%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 highly actionable and exceptionally well-sequenced with strong validation gates and feedback loops. Its main weaknesses are verbosity from repeated emphatic padding and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure to bundle files.

Suggestions

Trim repeated ALL-CAPS emphasis and the conceptual Threat Awareness bullets to lean operational signal; trust the MANDATORY gate wording once.

Move the contributor-credit rules and integrate-and-fix flow into a references/ file (e.g., CONTRIBUTOR_CREDIT.md) linked one level deep from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Extract the release-classification rubric (PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR) into its own reference file, keeping only a concise summary and a pointer in the main body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly actionable but includes trimmable padding — repeated ALL-CAPS emphasis ("MANDATORY", "SUPER IMPORTANT", "CRITICAL") and a conceptual Threat Awareness section ("Coordinated attacks exist", "Social engineering builds trust") — so it fits anchor 3 rather than the tighter anchor 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands throughout (gh pr diff, terraform plan, git worktree add), plus concrete checklists and an output template covering the common review cases, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 9-step workflow with a graph diagram, explicit validation gates ("If terraform plan shows ANY resource destruction → MAJOR release required"), feedback loops ("When Reviewers Disagree"), and checklists, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the ~480-line body inlines detail that could be split out (release classification, contributor-credit rules, integrate-and-fix flow); section headers give some structure but there are no one-level-deep bundle references, fitting anchor 3.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 a specific security-focused PR-review niche with an explicit "Use when" trigger, covering both what and when. It is solid but stops short of comprehensive trigger synonyms and a fully explicit user-trigger phrasing.

Suggestions

Add the common synonym "PR" (e.g., "Use when reviewing a pull request (PR) or the user asks for a code review") to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Make the "when" clause an explicit user trigger phrase, e.g., "Use when the user asks to review a pull request or PR for security, breaking changes, or backward compatibility."

Optionally surface one more concrete capability (e.g., release classification) so the what-list reads as comprehensive rather than partial.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the PR-review domain and several concrete review focuses ("breaking changes, malicious patterns, and backward compatibility"), but omits others covered in the body (code quality, release classification), so it sits below the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both the "what" (security-focused review scope) and "when" (Use when reviewing a pull request) are present; the "when" is concrete but slightly generic rather than an explicit user-utterance trigger, fitting anchor 4 not 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when reviewing a pull request" is a natural trigger phrase, but the description lacks common synonyms such as "PR" or "code review", leaving a few natural terms missing relative to the anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The security-focused, repo-guidance-tied niche is mostly distinct, but "reviewing a pull request" has minor overlap risk with a generic PR-review skill, matching anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

mysticaltech/terraform-hcloud-kube-hetzner

Path

.claude/skills/review-pr/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.