roborev-design-review-branch
Request a design review for all commits on the current branch and present the results
51
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
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 conveys a basic understanding of what the skill does—requesting design reviews for branch commits—but lacks a 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for Claude to know when to select it. The trigger terms are reasonable but incomplete, and the single-action description doesn't fully convey the skill's capabilities or boundaries.
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.'
Include more natural trigger term variations such as 'code review', 'review my changes', 'PR feedback', 'branch diff review' to improve matching.
Expand the capability description to list specific actions, e.g., 'Requests a design review for all commits on the current branch, summarizes reviewer feedback, and presents actionable results.'
| 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 for when Claude should select this skill. 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', etc. | 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
77%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 skill with strong actionability and workflow clarity. The 5-step process is clearly sequenced with proper validation, error handling, and conditional next steps. Minor improvements could be made in conciseness by trimming the examples section (which largely repeats the instructions) and tightening the panels explanation.
Suggestions
Trim the Examples section — it mostly restates the instructions and adds ~20 lines without new information. A single brief example or removing it entirely would improve token efficiency.
Consider condensing the Panels subsection into a shorter note, since much of it explains internal mechanics that could be inferred from the CLI flags.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but has some redundancy. The 'When NOT to invoke this skill' and 'IMPORTANT' sections add useful context, but the examples section largely restates the instructions already given. The panels explanation is somewhat verbose for what could be a shorter note. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, executable bash commands, specific CLI flags, clear tool invocation details (Task tool with run_in_background and subagent_type), and explicit error handling guidance. The command construction is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation (step 1: verify ref), error handling (step 4: report errors with specific remediation suggestions), and conditional branching (pass vs fail in steps 4-5). The feedback loop for errors is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 'See also' section provides good cross-references to related skills. However, with no bundle files, the skill is somewhat monolithic — the panels explanation and examples could potentially be separated. The content is reasonably organized with clear sections but is all inline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
a407fdb
- 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.