CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skill-review-response

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

59

Quality

67%

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/skill-review-response/SKILL.md
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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable workflow for handling code review feedback, with clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, and concrete templates. Its only weakness is mild verbosity in the speculative multi-provider generalizations.

Suggestions

Tighten or remove the 'Multi-Provider Review Context' provider-tendency claims, which are unverifiable stereotypes that pad the skill without adding executable guidance.

Consider condensing the host-adapter blockquote at the top into a single line pointer to keep the overview focused on the core workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean with short sections, a checklist table, and tight pattern blocks, but the 'Multi-Provider Review Context' section makes stereotyped generalizations ('Codex tends toward enterprise patterns, may over-engineer') that are unnecessary speculation, fitting 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete executable guidance: a 6-step response pattern, a forbidden-responses list, an If-YES/If-NO evaluation checklist table, and a copy-paste-ready push-back template with line-number evidence, reaching 'specific examples; copy-paste ready' despite being instruction-only.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Response Pattern is a clear sequenced workflow and the Feedback Loops section adds explicit validation checkpoints (run skill-verification-gate, re-read feedback, expect fewer issues each round) with error-recovery guidance, matching 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized sections and no nested references; cross-references (codex-host-adapter.md, skill-verification-gate) are one-level and clearly signaled, and no bundle files exist to offload, so well-organized sections suffice for the top anchor.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 clear, explicit use-when trigger but is essentially trigger-only: it names the scenario without stating what concrete actions the skill performs. This yields mid-range scores across specificity, completeness, and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add concrete capabilities after the trigger, e.g. 'Verify feedback against the actual codebase, evaluate whether it applies, then respond with technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback.'

Expand trigger terms to include natural phrasings users say, such as 'code review', 'review comments', or 'PR feedback'.

State the skill's purpose more distinctly (e.g. 'Avoids blindly implementing review feedback') to reduce overlap with general response skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("a reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback to address") but lists no concrete actions the skill performs (e.g. verify, evaluate, push back, implement), matching the 'Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor rather than the vague score-1 example.

2 / 3

Completeness

The explicit 'Use when...' clause answers 'when' clearly, but the 'what' is weak — 'feedback to address' does not describe what the skill does, so it does not reach the score-3 bar of clearly answering both what AND when.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant terms ("reviewer", "CI bot", "feedback") but omits common natural variations users would say such as "code review", "review comments", or "PR comments", fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger (review/CI-bot/AI feedback) is a recognizable niche but 'feedback' is broad enough to overlap with general response or communication skills, fitting 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
nyldn/claude-octopus
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.