Names the domain (code review) and two actions (request a review, present results), but lacks detail on what 'presenting results' entails or what kind of review is performed.

Describes what the skill does (request a code review for a commit and present results) but has no 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also fairly thin, placing this at 1.

Includes 'code review' and 'commit' which are natural terms users might say, but misses common variations like 'PR review', 'pull request', 'review my changes', 'diff', or 'feedback on code'.

The combination of 'code review' and 'commit' provides some specificity, but could overlap with general code review skills, linting tools, or git-related skills without clearer scoping.

The skill is lean and efficient. It doesn't explain what code reviews are, what git is, or how bash works. Every section serves a purpose and the instructions assume Claude's competence. The 'When NOT to invoke' section is a valuable boundary that earns its tokens.

Provides fully executable bash commands for both validation (`git rev-parse --verify`) and the review itself (`roborev review [commit] --wait`). Clear instructions on how to construct commands based on user input, and specific guidance on parsing output and presenting results.

Clear 4-step sequence with explicit validation at step 1 (verify commit ref, halt if invalid), error handling at step 3 (check for errors, suggest remediation), and conditional branching at step 4 (offer fix only on failure). The feedback loop for invalid inputs and error states is well-defined.

Content is well-organized with clear sections (Usage, When NOT to invoke, Instructions, Examples, See also). References to related skills ($roborev-fix, $roborev-design-review, $roborev-review-branch) are one level deep and clearly signaled. The skill is appropriately sized for a single file.