CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

pr-feedback-quality-gate

Safely track pull request feedback, resolve review comments or merge conflicts, validate fixes, and use a read-only cross-review before committing or pushing follow-up changes.

67

Quality

84%

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

92%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.

A lean, well-sequenced instruction-only skill body: explicit validation checkpoints, a fix-and-retry feedback loop gating commits, and clean section organization. The only notable gap is that the skill's central mechanism — launching the read-only cross-review — is described as a constraint but not as an executable step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every line is prescriptive and earns its place ('Make the smallest safe fix', 'Treat cross-review as evidence, not authority'); there is no concept explanation or padding to trim.

5 / 5

Actionability

Mostly concrete guidance ('include `pnpm guard`', 'Forbid file edits and git write or coordination commands'), but the core cross-review mechanism never gets a concrete command, and 'check often enough to unblock quickly' is vague.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation gates ('Run the narrow validation first, then the repository-required gates') and an explicit fix-rerun-repeat feedback loop before commit/push is allowed.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with no bundle files needed; content is well organized into Workflow, Monitoring cadence, and Report sections with nothing inlined that belongs in a separate file — the simple-skill exception applies.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

71%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, action-dense description in third-person voice with good natural trigger terms, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which both caps completeness and leaves the activation condition implicit. Adding a concrete 'when' clause with PR-related synonyms would push it into the top band.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a PR has review comments, merge conflicts, failing checks, or needs a monitored follow-up after pushing fixes.'

Add natural synonyms and abbreviations such as 'PR feedback', 'address review comments', and 'CI checks' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Clarify what the read-only cross-review is (e.g., a second Claude CLI invocation restricted to read-only tools) so the description's core mechanism is less opaque.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists five concrete actions — 'track pull request feedback, resolve review comments or merge conflicts, validate fixes, and use a read-only cross-review' — covering the full PR-feedback lifecycle with no vague filler.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear, but the description contains no explicit 'Use when...' clause — timing is only weakly implied by 'before committing or pushing follow-up changes', which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'pull request feedback', 'review comments', 'merge conflicts', and 'committing or pushing' are present, but common synonyms such as 'PR', 'address feedback', or 'CI checks' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The read-only cross-review gate before commit/push is a fairly distinct niche, though it retains minor overlap risk with general code-review and PR-management skills.

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

nexu-io/open-design

Path

skills/pr-feedback-quality-gate/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.