skill-review-response

Use when a reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback to address

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/skill-review-response/SKILL.md

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, actionable process skill with a clear sequenced workflow, an evaluation checklist, and explicit verification/feedback loops. It is concise and assumes Claude's competence, with only minor speculative padding in the multi-provider section and verification delegated to an external skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean, assumes Claude's intelligence (no basic-concept padding), and uses compact tables and short sections; the 'Multi-Provider Review Context' generalizations ('tends toward enterprise patterns, may over-engineer') are minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed, matching the score-4 anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable guidance is provided — a numbered 6-step response pattern, a decision-table checklist, and a copy-pasteable push-back template with line-number/call-site evidence; it is not a 5 because some guidance (e.g., 'Run verification') relies on an external skill rather than giving the exact command inline.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear sequenced process (READ→RESTATE→VERIFY→EVALUATE→RESPOND→IMPLEMENT) is paired with an evaluation checklist, an explicit verification gate, and a feedback-loop section with error-recovery guidance (fix→verify→re-read, fewer issues each round), matching the score-5 anchor with checklists and feedback loops.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-organized with clear section headers and no unnecessary nesting; with no bundle files present and all content appropriately inline for a single-process skill, it is well-structured but lacks the one-level-deep file references that would warrant a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

56%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 has a strong, explicit trigger clause with good natural keywords and a clear niche, but it states no concrete capabilities — the 'what' is only weakly implied inside the 'when' clause. Adding one or two specific actions (e.g., 'evaluate, verify, and respond to code review feedback') would raise both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 concrete actions before the 'Use when' clause, e.g., 'Evaluates, verifies, and responds to code review feedback. Use when a reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback to address.'

Broaden trigger coverage with natural synonyms such as 'code review comments', 'PR feedback', or 'review notes' to capture how users actually phrase the request.

State the 'what' as a distinct capability rather than embedding it only in the trigger clause, so the description answers both what the skill does and when to use it.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase 'leaves feedback to address' names the domain (review feedback) but provides only a minimal, generic implied action with no concrete capabilities, matching the score-2 anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not a 1 because a domain and an implied action are present, and not a 3 because no 1-2 distinct concrete actions are enumerated.	2 / 5
Completeness	There is a clear explicit 'when' ('Use when a reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback') but only a weakly implied 'what' ('feedback to address') embedded in the trigger clause rather than stated as a capability, placing it between the only-when (2) and both-what-and-when (4) anchors.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback' covers several natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage; it is not a 5 because common synonyms like 'code review comments', 'PR feedback', or 'review notes' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trigger targets a specific niche (responding to review feedback from reviewers/CI bots/AIs) and is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general code-review skills; it is not a 5 because the action is not specified concretely enough to fully eliminate overlap.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: nyldn/claude-octopus
Path: skills/skill-review-response/SKILL.md
Commit: 242e51d

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.