CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skill-staged-review

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

60

Quality

71%

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

Quality

Content

88%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced two-stage pipeline with strong validation gates and executable bash throughout. It loses a point only on conciseness (minor trimmable prose) and progressive disclosure (long orchestration bash inlined rather than split into a bundled script).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely lean bash and tight markdown templates that assume Claude's competence (no explanations of PRs, stubs, or git); a few framing sentences like 'A Claude-only review pipeline misses what external models catch' could be trimmed but are load-bearing.

4 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready bash for stub detection (5 concrete checks), multi-LLM provider dispatch with a Claude fallback, and PR posting, plus concrete [PASS]/[FAIL]/[PARTIAL] report templates covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Stages and sub-steps are explicitly sequenced with an Stage 1 gate table, a 'Stage 1 must pass before Stage 2 runs' rule, and feedback loops ('If user chooses to fix: stop and list fixes'); validation precedes destructive/batch review.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Single self-contained SKILL.md with clear section headers and no nested references; the long inlined multi-LLM orchestration and PR-posting bash blocks (which call out to non-bundled external scripts) could live in a scripts/ file rather than the body.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 clear, natural trigger and good distinctiveness, but it answers 'when' far more strongly than 'what' — it never names the actual two-stage pipeline mechanics. Specificity and completeness are capped at 3 because the capability surface is only implied.

Suggestions

Lead with what the skill does, e.g. 'Runs a two-stage review pipeline that validates implementation against an intent contract (Stage 1) then runs stub detection and multi-LLM code-quality review (Stage 2)'.

Add common trigger synonyms users say — 'spec review', 'code review', 'review against spec' — alongside the existing 'specification' and 'code-quality review'.

Mirror the trigger aliases ('staged review', 'two-stage review', 'review against spec') in the description so the natural phrase matches the surfaced skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (PR/feature review) and two concrete review types (specification + code-quality), but coverage is exactly two actions rather than the 'several' required for a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ('Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review') but the 'what' is only weakly implied — the description never states the skill runs a two-stage pipeline with intent-contract validation and stub detection.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms ('PR', 'feature', 'specification', 'code-quality review') but misses common variations a user might say such as 'spec review', 'code review', or 'review against spec'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'both specification AND code-quality' framing carves a clear niche and the body explicitly redirects quick checks to skill-code-review; minor overlap risk with plain code-review skills, which is actively disambiguated.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
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.