CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skill-staged-review

Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review

55

Quality

61%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/skill-staged-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 delivers an executable two-stage review pipeline with concrete bash, status markers, decision tables, and a stage gate. It is padded with mandatory-contract boilerplate and rationale prose, and leans on external scripts not present in this skill's bundle with no in-skill progressive disclosure to offset the inlined scripts.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Execution Contract (MANDATORY)' / 'PROHIBITED' boilerplate and the multi-LLM rationale prose to reduce tokens without losing the enforced workflow.

Move the stub-detection and PR-posting bash into scripts/ files the body invokes, turning the body into an overview that points one level deep.

Proceduralize the fix-or-override and multi-LLM synthesis feedback loops as explicit numbered steps or checklists to push workflow clarity higher.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with concrete bash and tables, but includes trimmable boilerplate (the 'Execution Contract (MANDATORY)' and 'PROHIBITED' blocks, host-adapter note) and rationale prose Claude already knows, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready bash for intent loading, the five stub-detection checks, git diff acquisition, PR detection, and PR commenting, with only minor gaps where the multi-LLM dispatch and quality-review dimensions lean on unverified external tooling or checklists rather than executable code.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear two-stage sequence has an explicit Stage 1 gate, status markers, decision tables, and an error-handling table; validation checkpoints are present, with only minor gaps where the multi-LLM synthesis and fix-or-override loops are described but not fully proceduralized.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has no bundle files and inlines substantial scripts (stub detection, PR posting) that a well-disclosed design would split into scripts/, while its external references (codex-host-adapter.md, orchestrate.sh) are unverified and buried in code rather than clearly signaled one-level-deep in-skill references.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 offers a clear 'when' trigger with natural PR/feature terms and a distinct combined-review niche, but it never explicitly states what the skill does, relying on inference. It is concise yet light on concrete capability actions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'what' clause stating the skill runs a two-stage (spec compliance then code quality) review pipeline, e.g. 'Runs a two-stage review: spec compliance then code quality. Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review.'

Broaden trigger coverage with natural synonyms such as 'code review', 'spec review', or 'PR review' to improve recall.

List one or two concrete review actions (e.g. 'validates success criteria and detects stubs') to raise specificity beyond the 1-2-action anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (PR/feature review) and two concrete review dimensions ('specification' and 'code-quality review'), matching the anchor for naming a domain plus 1-2 concrete actions without being comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

It gives an explicit 'when' ('Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review') but never states what the skill does; the 'what' (a two-stage review pipeline) is only weakly implied, leaving it below the both-what-and-when anchor.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user terms 'PR' and 'feature' plus 'specification' and 'code-quality review' give good keyword coverage, though common synonyms like 'code review' or 'spec review' are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combined 'specification and code-quality review' framing carves a distinct niche apart from a plain code-review skill, with only minor overlap risk against closely related review skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

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.