roborev-design-review-branch
Request a design review for all commits on the current branch and present the results
67
58%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./internal/skills/claude/roborev-design-review-branch/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 communicates a basic action but lacks a 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for Claude to know when to select this skill. The term 'design review' is somewhat ambiguous (code design vs. visual design) and could benefit from clarification. The description is concise but insufficiently detailed for reliable skill selection among many options.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a design review, code review of branch commits, or feedback on recent changes.'
Clarify what 'design review' means in this context (e.g., code architecture review, UI design review) to reduce ambiguity and conflict with other skills.
Include natural trigger term variations such as 'code review', 'review my changes', 'branch review', or 'review PR' to improve matching.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a specific action ('request a design review') and a specific context ('all commits on the current branch'), but it only describes one action rather than listing multiple concrete capabilities. It's more specific than vague but not comprehensive. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description answers 'what' (request a design review for commits and present results) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'when' is entirely absent, this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'design review', 'commits', and 'current branch' that users might naturally say. However, it misses common variations like 'code review', 'PR review', 'diff review', 'feedback on changes', or 'review my code'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'design review' and 'commits on the current branch' provides some specificity, but 'design review' could overlap with UI/UX design review skills, and 'commits' could overlap with general git or code review skills. The scope is somewhat ambiguous. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, actionable skill with clear workflow steps, validation checkpoints, and error handling paths. The main weakness is moderate verbosity — the examples section largely duplicates the instructions, and some preamble sections could be trimmed. Overall it's a solid skill that effectively guides Claude through the review process.
Suggestions
Condense or remove the Examples section since it mostly restates the numbered instructions without adding new information.
Trim the 'IMPORTANT' and 'When NOT to invoke' sections — Claude can infer these from context, and the instruction about executing bash commands is self-evident from the steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary verbosity, such as the 'When NOT to invoke this skill' section and the 'IMPORTANT' preamble explaining that bash commands are needed. The examples section largely restates the instructions. Some tightening is possible. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable bash commands and tool invocations at each step. The exact command syntax is given, including optional flags, and the Task tool usage is specified with parameters like `run_in_background: true` and `subagent_type: "Bash"`. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequence with explicit validation (step 1: verify ref), error handling (step 4: report errors and suggest remediation), and conditional branching (pass vs fail in steps 4-5). The feedback loop for errors is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections (Usage, Instructions with numbered steps, Examples, See also). The 'See also' section provides one-level-deep references to related skills. Content length is appropriate for inline presentation without needing external files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- roborev-dev/roborev
- Commit
2c9749e
- 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.