roborev-respond

Add a comment to a roborev code review and close it

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

100%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is concise, highly actionable, and presents a clearly sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints and worked examples. For a simple single-task skill, it is well-organized with no need for external references.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and direct—executable commands, brief validation, and tight examples with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	It provides fully executable bash commands with exact flags and concrete worked examples using real job IDs (e.g. `roborev comment --job 1019 "Fixed all issues" && roborev close 1019`), which is copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered sequence (validate input, record comment and close, verify success) with explicit validation (`roborev show --json`, panel_role check) and a verify step enumerating common failure causes, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no external references, and its sections (Usage, Instructions, Examples, See also) are well-organized, which per the scoring notes warrants a 3.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Description

57%

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 specific and distinct but incomplete: it concretely states what the skill does yet omits any explicit "when to use it" trigger guidance. Adding a "Use when..." clause covering natural user phrasings would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to reply to, comment on, or close a roborev code review."

Expand natural keyword coverage with variations users actually say ("reply to a review", "respond to roborev", "close a review").

Optionally mention related jobs like re-opening or viewing a review to broaden the action list toward full specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the roborev code-review domain and two concrete actions ("Add a comment" and "close it"), but stops at two actions rather than listing a comprehensive set, matching the score-2 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does, but provides no explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should use it; per the guidelines, a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Uses some natural terms ("comment", "code review", "close") but offers no "Use when..." variations, so coverage of phrasings a user would say is partial.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Binding to the proper-noun tool "roborev" and the narrow comment-and-close action gives it a clear niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: roborev-dev/roborev
Commit: be9921f

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.