CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

code-review

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

Quality

85%

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

The canonical home for this skill is code-review in mattpocock/skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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.

A well-structured, highly actionable process skill: concrete git commands, literal sub-agent prompt briefs, a fail-fast validation checkpoint, and explicit handling of missing inputs. All four dimensions land at 4 due to small, consistent gaps — an inlined smell baseline, dangling references to a tracker doc and a setup skill with no paths, and no retry guidance for failed sub-agent outputs.

Suggestions

Move the 12-smell baseline (step 3) into a references/ file (e.g. references/smell-baseline.md) and have the orchestrating agent read and paste it when spawning the Standards sub-agent — this trims ~20 lines from SKILL.md (conciseness) and improves progressive disclosure while preserving the paste-into-prompt behavior.

Replace the dangling "the tracker doc" and "/setup-matt-pocock-skills" references with concrete paths or the actual command to run, so the spec-fetch workflow is executable without guessing (actionability).

Add a brief retry/re-prompt instruction for when a sub-agent report is malformed, over the word limit, or the spec fetch fails, giving the workflow an explicit feedback loop (workflow clarity).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence — code smells are given as terse name → fix one-liners and nothing basic is explained — but there is minor redundancy ("Start every sub-agent with a fresh context window" repeats "so they don't pollute each other's context") and the ~20-line smell baseline is inlined when it could live in a reference file. This matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor trimming possible) rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place leanness.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: "git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD", "git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline", "git rev-parse <fixed-point>", plus two literal quote-ready sub-agent briefs and an ordered spec-source lookup with fallbacks. It falls short of anchor 5 only because of dangling pointers — "fetched via the workflow in the tracker doc" and "/setup-matt-pocock-skills" have no path or in-bundle target — matching anchor 4 (mostly executable, minor gaps).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence with an explicit fail-fast validation checkpoint ("confirm the fixed point resolves... A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents") and error branches (no fixed point → ask; no spec → skip and note). It matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because there is no retry/re-prompt feedback loop for outcomes like a malformed sub-agent report or a failed spec fetch. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since this is a read-only review skill.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the body is well organized into a numbered process with clear headings and a rationale section, so navigation is easy. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because at ~85 lines the 12-smell baseline is inlined where a references/ file could hold it, and external references ("the tracker doc", "/setup-matt-pocock-skills") are not clearly signaled with paths; it is well above anchor 3's muddled organization.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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.

A strong description in third-person voice that clearly and concretely states what the skill does (two-axis review of changes since a fixed point, run via parallel sub-agents) and when to use it, with natural trigger phrases. The only weakness is slightly incomplete synonym coverage (e.g., "code review", "diff") and minor overlap risk with general code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names multiple concrete, specific actions — "Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes", a Standards conformance check, a Spec fidelity check, "Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side" — covering every capability of the skill comprehensively. It fits the anchor-5 example's level of concrete, comprehensive action listing; score 4 would require noticeable coverage gaps, which there aren't.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: a detailed 'what' (two-axis review with each axis explained) and a concrete 'when' clause with trigger phrases ("review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or 'review since X'"). This matches anchor 5 exactly; anchor 4 requires a 'when' that is less explicit or specific, which is not the case here.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to 'review since X'" provides good natural-phrase coverage users would actually say. It misses common synonyms such as "code review", "diff", or "review my changes", so it matches anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than the synonym-level comprehensiveness of anchor 5, and is clearly above anchor 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The two-axis framing ("Standards... Spec") and "since a fixed point (merge-base)" scoping carve a clear niche, but phrases like "review a branch, a PR" still overlap with a generic code-review skill, giving minor conflict risk. Anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap) fits better than anchor 5's minimal-conflict niche, and it is far more specific than anchor 3.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

parttio/dramafinder

Path

.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

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.