CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skill-staged-review

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

69

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is highly actionable with a clear gated workflow and explicit error recovery, but it carries explanatory padding and a dangling host-adapter reference rather than a properly structured multi-file bundle.

Suggestions

Trim the host-adapter preamble and the provider-justification prose; the enforced-contract rules already cover the key constraints.

Either ship skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md in the bundle or remove the reference, since the cited path is currently missing.

Extract the long stub-detection and PR-posting bash scripts into a scripts/ file referenced one level deep to reduce SKILL.md token weight.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with concrete bash blocks, but includes unnecessary explanatory prose (e.g. "A Claude-only review pipeline misses what external models catch") and the MANDATORY execution-contract/host-adapter preamble that pads token cost beyond what Claude needs.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable bash for intent loading, stub detection, provider dispatch, and PR posting, with concrete regex checks and copy-paste-ready commands throughout.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Two-stage pipeline is clearly sequenced with an explicit Stage 1 gate table, status markers, error-handling table, and fix-or-override feedback loops that catch failures before proceeding.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized but the body is a monolithic ~320-line document; the only referenced file (skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md) is not present in the bundle, so navigation to detail is largely dangling rather than cleanly split.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

90%

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 is concise, third-person, and answers both what and when with natural trigger terms. Its only weakness is moderate specificity — it names the two review dimensions but omits the concrete pipeline actions that distinguish this skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and two review actions ("specification and code-quality review") but does not enumerate concrete actions like validation gates, stub detection, or multi-LLM dispatch that the skill actually performs.

2 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (specification + code-quality review) and when ("Use when a PR or feature needs both") with a clear "Use when" trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses natural terms a user would actually say — "PR", "feature", "specification", "code-quality review" — giving good coverage of likely trigger phrasing.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The dual spec-compliance-plus-code-quality framing carves a clear niche distinct from generic code review or verification skills, making misfires unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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.