CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

autoreview

Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.

61

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/autoreview/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is autoreview in openclaw/openclaw

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 highly actionable with a clearly sequenced, validation-rich closeout workflow and real bundled-script references. Its main weakness is length and repetition across the models, isolation, and Helper sections, plus inlined reference material that could be split into a one-level-deep file.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated model-default and engine-isolation details into a single table or section; they currently recur in the intro prose, two model tables, the isolation table, and the Helper bullet list.

Move the bulk of the flag/environment-variable reference (the long tables under 'Models and thinking', 'Environment defaults', and 'Review engine isolation') into a separate REFERENCE.md and link to it from SKILL.md, keeping the overview lean.

Tighten or dedupe the stop-condition guidance, which is restated in the Contract, Scope Governor, Context Efficiency, and Final Report sections.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body respects Claude's intelligence with no concept-padding, but it is very long (~410 lines) with material repeated across sections (model defaults appear in prose, two tables, and the Helper list; Claude/Codex isolation flags repeated in the isolation table, prose, and Helper bullets), fitting the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash and PowerShell invocations with real flags and model IDs (e.g., '--mode branch --base origin/main', '--reviewers codex,claude --model ...'), plus env-var tables and smoke-harness commands covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The closeout process is explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: scope-baseline freeze, finding classification, two-cycle pause and reclassification, rerun tests+review until no actionable findings, and an explicit stop condition on exit 0.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good sectioning with real, clearly signaled bundled scripts in ./scripts/ (autoreview, test-review-harness, autoreview_test.py) referenced via $AUTOREVIEW/$AUTOREVIEW_HARNESS, but a large flag/env/isolation reference section is inlined in SKILL.md rather than split one level deep into a separate reference file.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 is specific and well-differentiated, naming the domain and concrete engine options in third person, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and comprehensive natural-language trigger synonyms. It is solid but could be made more complete and trigger-rich.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a pre-commit or ship code review, a second-model review, or a PR/branch review before landing changes').

Expand trigger terms to include natural synonyms users actually say, such as 'review my PR', 'second opinion', 'review before commit/merge', and 'branch review'.

Briefly name the concrete actions the skill performs (run a structured review helper, validate findings, exit clean/no-findings) so the 'what' covers capability rather than only engine selection.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (code review) plus concrete specifics (pre-commit/ship timing, Codex/Claude/Pi engines), matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor rather than the comprehensive multi-action anchor above.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (pre-commit/ship code review with engine options) but the 'when' is only weakly implied via 'Pre-commit/ship' with no explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases ('code review', 'pre-commit/ship', 'Codex', 'Claude', 'Pi') with good coverage, but misses common synonyms like 'review my PR', 'second opinion', or branch-review phrasing that would warrant a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The engine-specific framing ('Codex default; optional Claude or Pi') and closeout/second-model niche make it mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic code-review skills, fitting the 'mostly distinct' anchor.

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
openclaw/acpx
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.