CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pr-comments-address

Use when working through code-review feedback to apply fixes and replies — "address the PR comments", "address the MR comments", "reply to CodeRabbit/Codex feedback", "resolve these review threads", "apply this review". Works in two modes. Public mode (default) responds to reviewer feedback on a pull request or merge request you authored, on GitHub or GitLab — fix, reply, resolve, commit, and push. Local mode — triggered when the request says "locally", "for myself", "apply this review", or "don't post" — applies feedback from a local review file to your working tree, posting nothing to a review platform. Each item gets a proposed fix or reply for your approval first. This is the author's side; to review someone else's PR, use pr-review.

75

Quality

92%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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-engineered, highly actionable workflow skill with clear sequencing, an explicit approval gate, and clean one-level-deep reference splitting. Its one weakness is conciseness: the approval-gate discipline and anchoring rationale are restated several times and could be tightened.

Suggestions

Consolidate the approval-gate guidance: step 3, the pre-gate protocol, the amendments section, and Boundaries all re-explain the same gate — state the rule once authoritatively and reference it, rather than re-deriving it each time.

Trim the meta-commentary passages (e.g. "The documented failure here: composing the plan in thinking...") to the actionable instruction; the failure mode can be named without the narrative.

Tighten the anchoring rationale in step 2 — the core point (triage in a fresh subagent, withhold session reasoning) can be made in roughly half the length without losing the why.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but the approval gate is re-explained across step 3, the pre-gate protocol, boundaries, and amendments, and the anchoring rationale and "documented failure" meta-commentary could be tightened without losing the guidance.

3 / 5

Actionability

Gives concrete commands ("gh auth status", "git remote get-url origin"), exact tool calls (subagent_type: "general-purpose", not "fork"), exact file paths (review/pr-<N>-comments-plan.md), a category decision table, and a commit-subject example — fully actionable for an instruction-only skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A 6-step numbered sequence with explicit validation (the results gate), feedback loops (back with sources / proceed / change, re-present the revised plan), and deliberate handling of batch review items — checkpoints and error recovery are explicit.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a platform-agnostic overview; platform-specific commands are split into real, one-level-deep references (github.md, gitlab.md, local.md) that are all linked from the body and cross-linked to each other, making navigation easy.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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, specific description that names concrete actions, surfaces natural trigger phrases a user would say, and explicitly carves out its niche against the related pr-review skill. Both the what and the when are answered with concrete examples and no over-claiming.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions for both modes — "fix, reply, resolve, commit, and push" (public) and "applies feedback from a local review file to your working tree" (local) — plus a per-item approval step, giving comprehensive coverage with no real gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (fix/reply/resolve/commit/push; apply local feedback to the working tree) and when ("Use when working through code-review feedback..." with concrete trigger phrases), in third-person voice.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would actually say — "address the PR comments", "reply to CodeRabbit/Codex feedback", "resolve these review threads", "for myself", "don't post" — with synonyms (PR/MR) and platform/tool names, covering common variations.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (the author's side of addressing review feedback) and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling skill ("to review someone else's PR, use pr-review"), with public vs. local modes kept distinct.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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
provectus/awos-recruitment
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.