roborev-design-review
Request a design review for a commit and present the results
53
58%
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/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 is too brief and lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), making it difficult for Claude to reliably select this skill from a large pool. While it mentions 'design review' and 'commit', these terms are insufficiently specific and the description doesn't clarify what kind of design review or what the results look like.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a design review, architecture feedback, or review of a git commit.'
Clarify what 'design review' means in this context—is it code architecture, UI/UX, API design?—and list specific actions like 'analyzes commit diffs, checks for design patterns, generates review comments.'
Include natural keyword variations users might say, such as 'review my commit', 'architecture review', 'design feedback', or 'code design check'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (design review) and two actions (request a review, present results), but lacks detail on what 'design review' entails or what specific outputs/formats are involved. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does at a high level but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite thin, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'design review' and 'commit', which users might naturally say, but misses common variations such as 'code review', 'PR review', 'architecture review', or 'review feedback'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'design review' and 'commit' provides some specificity, but 'design review' is ambiguous—it could overlap with code review, UI/UX review, or architecture review skills. | 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 skill with clear, actionable steps and good workflow sequencing including validation and error handling. The main weakness is moderate verbosity — the examples section largely duplicates the instructions, and some preamble text could be trimmed. Overall it's a solid, functional skill that Claude can follow effectively.
Suggestions
Trim the Examples section to only show one example or remove it entirely, since it largely restates the numbered instructions above.
Consider condensing the 'When NOT to invoke' and 'IMPORTANT' sections into a single brief note to reduce token overhead.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., 'These instructions are guidelines, not a rigid script' preamble, the 'When NOT to invoke this skill' section, and the examples section largely restates the instructions). The core workflow could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable commands at each step (git rev-parse, roborev review with specific flags, Task tool usage). Clear instructions on how to handle errors and present results, with specific tool parameters like `run_in_background: true` and `subagent_type: "Bash"`. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequence with explicit validation (step 1 validates commit ref before proceeding), error handling at step 4 with specific recovery suggestions (roborev status, roborev init), and conditional branching for pass/fail outcomes. The workflow has proper checkpoints and feedback loops. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear sections (Usage, When NOT to invoke, Instructions with numbered steps, Examples, See also). The 'See also' section provides one-level-deep references to related skills. For a standalone skill with no bundle, the structure is appropriate and easy to navigate. | 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
3172d3b
- 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.