CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

qodo-review-resolver

Read or resolve a pull request's Qodo review with the qodo CLI — fetch structured status, reviewed commit SHA, and findings for ANY PR as JSON, with optional extended details and citation evidence for audits, then optionally resolve open findings and record outcomes, once or until clean. Use this — never `gh`/`curl` scraping of review comments — for "is the review clean on PR

70

Quality

86%

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

77%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 highly actionable, rigorously gated workflow: exact CLI commands, explicit freshness and authorization checkpoints, and per-finding error semantics leave little ambiguity about what to do. Its weaknesses are verbosity from repeating core guardrails across multiple sections and a monolithic ~400-line body that inlines peripheral recovery procedures instead of moving them into the references directory.

Suggestions

State the freshness rule (completed review with commit_sha == PR head) once in a single authoritative section and reference it from 'Two modes', 'Read the session state FIRST', and 'Guardrails' instead of restating it four times.

Move the peripheral recovery procedures — the 'qodo: command not found' PATH fallback, the sandbox auth diagnostic, and the skill-update/runtime-recovery flows — into dedicated files under references/ (e.g., references/troubleshooting.md), keeping SKILL.md to the core read/resolve workflow.

Consolidate the repeated 'forge metadata reads are fine, don't scrape review comments' clarification (currently in Description, Instructions, Two modes, and Guardrails) into the Instructions note only.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is information-dense and assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept explanations), but key rules are repeated verbatim several times: the freshness rule ("completed AND its `commit_sha` equals the head") appears in the Instructions note, 'Read the session state FIRST', 'Two modes', and 'Guardrails'; the "forge metadata reads are fine" clarification and the "never post to the forge" rule each repeat 3–4 times. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not score-2 because the padding is redundant restatement of real rules rather than whole unnecessary explanation sections.

3 / 5

Actionability

The Quick start block gives copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags ("qodo read pr-review-session findings --pr-url <PR_URL> --json", "--extended", "mark-implemented… --explanation", "dismiss… --reason intentional"), plus offline discovery commands ("qodo read tools pr-review-session --json", "qodo tools help… --json") and concrete per-finding result codes ("not_found", "conflict", "reconciled: false", "already_dismissed") with terminal-vs-retryable handling and a worked Example. Specific examples cover the common read, fix, dismiss, and watch cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly gated sequence runs version probe → preflight (auth, PR resolution, repo/checkout binding) → fetch session → session-state-first check → triage → scope → resolve → record outcome, with explicit validation checkpoints throughout: "Act only on a completed review of the current commit", per-finding result verification ("Read `results` per finding, don't assume the call succeeded"), one-refresh recovery loops, bounded watch iterations ("stop after a few rounds with no progress"), and error feedback loops. Batch status writes (up to 100 ids) are explicitly paired with per-finding validation, satisfying the batch-operation feedback requirement.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are clear and the single bundle reference is real and well-signaled ("follow the [manual-update procedure](references/skill-updates.md)" — one level deep, verified to exist), but the ~400-line body inlines large amounts of peripheral procedural detail (PATH/command-not-found fallback, sandbox auth diagnostic, update-notice and enterprise-update flows, extended-results recovery) that clearly belongs in reference files. This matches 'some structure; references present but content that should be separate is inline' rather than score-4, where most content would be appropriately placed.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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.

An excellent description: concrete third-person capability statements, an explicit 'Use this… for' clause with a rich set of natural trigger phrases, and clear demarcation from gh/curl-based review reading. The only weakness is that a few generic quoted triggers could collide with general PR-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — "Read or resolve a pull request's Qodo review", "fetch structured status, reviewed commit SHA, and findings for ANY PR as JSON", "optional extended details and citation evidence for audits", "resolve open findings and record outcomes, once or until clean" — covering both the read and act paths comprehensively in third-person voice. It exceeds the score-4 anchor ('several specific actions; minor gaps') because coverage spans read, audit, fix, record, and watch modes with no visible gap.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' ("Read or resolve a pull request's Qodo review… fetch structured status, reviewed commit SHA, and findings… then optionally resolve open findings and record outcomes") and the 'when' ("Use this — never `gh`/`curl` scraping of review comments — for…" followed by concrete trigger phrases). This matches the score-5 anchor exactly, and the explicit 'Use this… for' clause keeps it above the score-4 anchor where 'when' could be more specific.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It embeds a comprehensive set of natural user phrases in quotes — "is the review clean on PR #N", "get Qodo's findings for <pr> as JSON", "audit the review evidence", "show finding citations", "what did Qodo flag", "is this review up to date with head", "check before merging", "resolve my PR review", "fix the review findings", "babysit this PR until it's clean" — plus synonyms (findings, citations, audit, review). This matches the comprehensive-coverage anchor including natural variations; nothing common is missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (Qodo PR review via the qodo CLI, explicitly contrasted with "never `gh`/`curl` scraping of review comments"), but several quoted triggers — "check before merging", "fix the review findings", "resolve my PR review" — are generic and could also match a plain code-review or PR-review skill. It is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against closely related review skills, fitting the score-4 anchor rather than the minimal-conflict score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 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
qodo-ai/qodo-skills
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.