CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

github-code-review

Comprehensive GitHub code review with AI-powered swarm coordination

41

3.69x
Quality

14%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

85%

3.69x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/github-code-review/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is github-code-review in ruvnet/agentic-flow

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

7%

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

This skill is an extremely verbose, marketing-style document that reads more like aspirational product documentation than actionable Claude instructions. The commands appear fabricated with no evidence of being executable, and critical safety concerns (auto-merging, pushing changes) lack validation steps. The content could be reduced by 80%+ while improving clarity by focusing on actual working commands and real workflows.

Suggestions

Reduce content to under 100 lines focusing only on what Claude needs to know that it doesn't already—remove all marketing bullets, obvious security check lists, and redundant sections

Replace speculative 'npx ruv-swarm' commands with actual executable workflows using real tools (gh CLI, existing linters, etc.) or clearly document that ruv-swarm must be installed and link to its actual documentation

Add explicit validation checkpoints to workflows, especially before destructive operations like auto-merge and push-changes (e.g., 'verify CI passes before merging', 'review generated comments before posting')

Split the monolithic file into focused sub-files (e.g., SECURITY-REVIEW.md, GITHUB-ACTIONS.md, CUSTOM-AGENTS.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clear references

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at 700+ lines with massive redundancy (the 'Multi-Agent Review System' section repeats the Quick Start nearly verbatim). Includes extensive marketing-style bullet points ('✅ Parallel review by specialized agents'), emoji decoration, JSON schemas listing obvious checks Claude already knows (e.g., 'SQL injection vulnerabilities', 'XSS attack vectors'), and sections like License/Last Updated that waste tokens. Much of the content is aspirational feature documentation rather than actionable instruction.

1 / 3

Actionability

Despite containing many code blocks, the commands reference a tool ('npx ruv-swarm') with invented CLI flags that appear fabricated and non-executable. There's no evidence these commands actually work—they read like speculative API design rather than tested, copy-paste-ready instructions. The bash scripts have issues (e.g., using $REVIEW_OUTPUT outside the step where it was defined in the GitHub Actions workflow). The skill describes rather than instructs.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Despite being a complex multi-step process involving destructive operations (auto-merging PRs, pushing changes), there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. The 'Complete Workflow Examples' are just single commands with no sequencing. The auto-merge script lacks safety checks beyond a simple review count. No error recovery patterns are defined for when agents fail or produce incorrect results.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Uses HTML details/summary tags for collapsible sections which provides some structure, and references related skills at the bottom. However, with no bundle files provided, all content is monolithically inlined in a single massive file. The Table of Contents with anchor links provides navigation but the sheer volume of inline content (configuration examples, custom agent code, workflow YAML, webhook handlers) should be split into separate files.

2 / 3

Total

5

/

12

Passed

Description

22%

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 relies heavily on buzzwords ('comprehensive', 'AI-powered', 'swarm coordination') without specifying concrete actions or providing trigger guidance. It names the domain (GitHub code review) but fails to explain what specific tasks it performs or when Claude should select it. The description needs significant improvement in specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Replace vague language with specific actions, e.g., 'Reviews pull request diffs, posts inline comments, checks for bugs and style issues, summarizes PR changes'.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to review a pull request, PR, GitHub diff, or wants feedback on code changes'.

Clarify what 'swarm coordination' means in concrete terms, e.g., 'Coordinates multiple review passes covering security, performance, and style' to make the description actionable rather than buzzword-driven.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague, buzzword-heavy language like 'comprehensive', 'AI-powered', and 'swarm coordination' without listing any concrete actions. It doesn't specify what the skill actually does (e.g., commenting on PRs, suggesting fixes, checking style).

1 / 3

Completeness

The 'what' is vaguely stated as 'code review' but lacks specifics, and there is no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance at all. The absence of a 'Use when...' clause caps this at 2, but the weak 'what' brings it down to 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'GitHub' and 'code review' are natural terms users might say, but the description lacks common variations like 'PR', 'pull request', 'review comments', 'diff', or 'merge request'. 'Swarm coordination' is technical jargon unlikely to be used by users.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'GitHub code review' provides some domain specificity, but 'comprehensive' is generic and it could overlap with other code review, GitHub, or PR-related skills. The 'swarm coordination' aspect is distinctive but too vague to serve as a clear differentiator.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1141 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
ruvnet/ruv-FANN
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.