agent-reviewer

Agent skill for reviewer - invoke with $agent-reviewer

1.15x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

81%

1.15x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-reviewer/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description is critically deficient across all dimensions. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what domain it operates in. It reads more like a label or invocation hint than a functional description.

Suggestions

Describe concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Reviews pull requests for code quality, checks for bugs, and suggests improvements' instead of just 'Agent skill for reviewer'.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a code review, PR feedback, or wants to check code quality.'

Specify the domain clearly (code review, document review, etc.) to distinguish this skill from other potentially overlapping review-related skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for reviewer' is extremely vague—it doesn't describe what the skill actually does (code review? document review? PR review?).	1 / 3
Completeness	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. There is no 'Use when...' clause and no description of capabilities.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only potentially relevant keyword is 'reviewer', which is generic. There are no natural terms a user would say when needing this skill. The invocation syntax '$agent-reviewer' is technical jargon, not a user trigger term.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Reviewer' is extremely generic and could conflict with any skill related to code review, document review, PR review, peer review, etc. There is nothing to distinguish this skill's niche.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

27%

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

This skill reads like a comprehensive code review textbook rather than a targeted skill for Claude. It spends most of its token budget explaining concepts Claude already knows (SQL injection, SOLID principles, DRY, N+1 queries) with extensive examples. The content would benefit enormously from being condensed to project-specific conventions and review workflow, with generic knowledge removed entirely.

Suggestions

Remove all generic programming knowledge (SOLID, DRY, SQL injection examples, N+1 queries, dependency injection) — Claude already knows these. Focus only on project-specific review standards, thresholds, and conventions.

Split the monolithic content: keep a concise overview in SKILL.md and move the review feedback template, security checklist, and MCP tool examples into separate referenced files.

Add explicit validation/feedback loops to the review workflow: e.g., what happens after issues are found, when to block vs. approve, how to verify fixes were applied correctly.

Condense the entire skill to under 50 lines focusing on: the specific review workflow steps, the feedback format template, priority classification rules, and MCP coordination commands.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~200+ lines. Explains basic concepts Claude already knows well (SOLID principles, DRY, SQL injection, N+1 queries, dependency injection). The security checklist, performance checks, and code quality examples are all standard knowledge that don't need to be taught. Most of the content is a textbook on code review rather than project-specific instructions.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains concrete code examples (SQL injection fix, N+1 query optimization, naming improvements) and a review feedback template, which are somewhat actionable. However, much of it is generic guidance rather than executable, project-specific instructions. The MCP tool integration section provides concrete tool calls but uses pseudo-JavaScript rather than actual invocation syntax.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The review process is broken into numbered sections (Functionality, Security, Performance, Code Quality, Maintainability) providing a sequence, and the feedback format template is useful. However, there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops — no guidance on what to do if issues are found during review, how to verify fixes, or when to re-review. The process is more of a checklist than a workflow with explicit decision points.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline — the extensive code examples, checklists, guidelines, and MCP integration could easily be split into separate reference files. No navigation structure or links to supplementary materials.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/ruflo
Commit: 0f7c750

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.