roborev-review-branch
Request a code 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-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 understanding of what the skill does—requesting code reviews for branch commits—but lacks a 'Use when' clause, reducing its utility for skill selection. It would benefit from more specific capability details and explicit trigger terms to help Claude distinguish it from other code review or git-related skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a code review, wants feedback on their branch, or mentions reviewing commits before merging.'
Include more natural trigger terms and variations such as 'PR review', 'review my changes', 'diff feedback', 'branch review', or 'review before merge'.
Expand the capability description to mention specifics like what kind of feedback is provided (e.g., style issues, bugs, suggestions) and how results are presented.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a specific domain (code review) and describes two actions (request a code review, present results), but lacks detail about what the review covers, what format results take, or additional capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description answers 'what' (request a code 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 rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'when' is entirely absent, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'code review', 'commits', and 'current branch' which users might naturally say, but misses common variations like 'PR review', 'pull request', 'diff review', 'review my changes', or 'feedback on code'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'code review for all commits on the current branch' is somewhat specific and distinguishes it from general code analysis skills, but could overlap with other code review or git-related skills without clearer scoping. | 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, actionable skill with a clear multi-step workflow including validation checkpoints and error recovery paths. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity — the examples section largely duplicates the instructions, and some framing text is unnecessary. The workflow clarity is strong with explicit validation, background task handling, and conditional next steps.
Suggestions
Trim or remove the Examples section since it mostly restates the instructions — or condense it to a single compact example showing only the unique aspects (like error handling output format).
Remove the 'These instructions are guidelines, not a rigid script' paragraph — Claude can infer this, and it wastes tokens.
| 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 disclaimer about guidelines vs rigid script is unnecessary padding. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable bash commands at each step (git rev-parse, roborev review with specific flags), specifies exact tool usage (Task tool with run_in_background and subagent_type), and gives clear output handling instructions including error cases and how to extract job IDs. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequence with explicit validation (step 1 validates the ref before proceeding), error handling at multiple points (invalid ref in step 1, command errors in step 4), and conditional branching for pass/fail outcomes. The workflow includes a feedback loop suggesting roborev status/init on errors. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill has good structure with clear sections and a 'See also' section linking to related skills. However, with no bundle files, the content is somewhat long for a single file — the examples section could potentially be separated. The cross-references to related skills are well-signaled but all content is 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
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.