CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comprehensive-review-full-review

Use when working with comprehensive review full review

39

Quality

37%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/comprehensive-review-full-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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 content delivers concrete, actionable subagent prompts in a clear phased sequence, but it is padded with redundant scaffolding and an unnecessary Extended Thinking block, lacks validation checkpoints between phases, and inlines everything into a single file with no progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Remove the Extended Thinking paragraph and the repeated 'Use Task tool with subagent_type=' boilerplate; state the agent and prompt once per phase.

Add validation/feedback checkpoints between phases, e.g. 'If Phase 1 finds architectural anti-patterns, re-scope Phase 2 security review before proceeding.'

Move the per-phase prompt templates and consolidated report structure into separate reference files (e.g. PHASES.md, REPORT.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose: a long Extended Thinking paragraph restating the obvious and repeated boilerplate ('Use Task tool with subagent_type=...') eight times, fitting 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections.'

2 / 5

Actionability

Prompts are concrete and copy-pasteable with specific subagent_types, named tools (Snyk, Trivy, GitLeaks), and explicit phase-context variables, fitting 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps.'

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-phase sequence with explicit inter-phase context handoffs exists, but validation checkpoints and feedback loops are absent for a batch orchestration operation, so the batch-validation cap holds at 'steps listed but validation gaps.'

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers and phase structure provide some organization, but no bundle files exist and the entire workflow is inlined into one file with content that belongs in separate references, fitting 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline.'

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

25%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 a tautological, buzzword-heavy trigger phrase that fails to state what the skill does and relies on generic language unlikely to be spoken by users. It scores poorly across specificity, trigger quality, completeness, and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

State concrete actions, e.g. 'Orchestrates multi-agent code review across quality, security, performance, testing, and documentation dimensions.'

Replace 'comprehensive review full review' with natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'code review', 'security audit', 'PR review', or 'architecture review'.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete scenarios, e.g. 'Use when performing an exhaustive code review or when the user asks for security/performance/test coverage analysis.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description ('Use when working with comprehensive review full review') names a domain-like phrase but lists no concrete actions, matching the 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' anchor and sitting below the midpoint.

2 / 5

Completeness

Only a tautological 'when' clause is present with no 'what' statement, matching 'only when is present without what'; it does not clearly answer what the skill does.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'comprehensive review full review' is repetitive filler rather than natural keywords a user would say, with no synonyms or file extensions, fitting 'one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say.'

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'comprehensive review' is very broad and would overlap with many review-related skills, fitting 'very broad; high overlap risk with many similar skills.'

2 / 5

Total

8

/

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.