CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review-excellence

Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.

61

Quality

72%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/code-review-excellence/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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 compact, well-organized instruction skill that avoids over-explanation and defers detail to a referenced playbook. Its main weaknesses are generic, non-concrete review directives and a referenced resource file that is absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Add a short concrete example of well-formed review feedback (e.g., a sample comment with severity + rationale) to lift actionability beyond high-level directives.

Provide either the missing resources/implementation-playbook.md or remove/inline the reference so navigation is not broken.

Tighten the workflow by ordering the Instructions as an explicit numbered sequence with a checkpoint (e.g., 'confirm intent is clear before reporting severity') to improve workflow_clarity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the opening mission line ('Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing...') is mild marketing padding that keeps it just short of the every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

The guidance is high-level directive ('Review for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability', 'Provide actionable feedback with severity and rationale') with a concrete output structure (severity grouping blocking/important/minor), but it lacks specific steps and defers detail to a playbook file, leaving key execution detail incomplete.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

An implied sequence exists ('Read context... first' then review then feedback), but it is loose bulleted prose rather than a clearly ordered workflow and has no validation/checkpoint steps; this is acceptable for a non-destructive review skill but sits at the sequence-present-but-checkpoints-implicit anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well organized into clear sections and signals a single one-level-deep reference ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') for detail, but that referenced file does not exist in the bundle, a minor navigation gap that prevents a 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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, well-structured description that clearly states both capability and trigger conditions in the rubric's preferred imperative+"Use when" pattern. It is held back from the top band only by slightly abstract action verbs and a few missing trigger synonyms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('code review practices') and several actions ('provide constructive feedback', 'catch bugs early', 'foster knowledge sharing', 'maintaining team morale'), but the actions are somewhat soft/abstract compared to the concrete PDF-action anchors, leaving minor coverage gaps rather than comprehensive concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early...') and when ('Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 example pattern.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrases users would say ('reviewing pull requests', 'mentoring developers', 'establishing review standards') plus 'code review' and 'pull requests', but misses common synonyms like 'PRs', 'merge requests', or 'diffs' that would warrant a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'code-review-excellence' occupies a clear niche with distinct triggers, but the 'auditing for correctness, security, or performance' use-case creates minor overlap risk with security-audit or general review skills rather than minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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
rmyndharis/antigravity-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.