Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
81
72%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.06xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/code-review/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdCode review reception protocol
No performative agreement
50%
33%
Stops on unclear items
66%
100%
No partial implementation while unclear
100%
100%
YAGNI check on SessionCacheManager
80%
100%
YAGNI check on BaseCache
100%
100%
Technical pushback on at least one item
100%
100%
No defensive tone in pushback
87%
100%
Implements unambiguous valid items
100%
100%
Technical acknowledgment on implemented items
70%
90%
External reviewer skepticism
90%
100%
Verification gates before completion claims
Test command cited
100%
100%
Test output included
100%
100%
Existing tests verified
100%
100%
Build/typecheck command cited
100%
100%
Per-criterion checklist
100%
100%
No unverified success claims
100%
100%
Bun preferred for tests
100%
100%
Evidence before claim pattern
70%
30%
No agent report trusted blindly
100%
100%
Gaps reported honestly
100%
100%
Code-reviewer subagent request process
BASE_SHA command
100%
100%
HEAD_SHA command
100%
100%
Task tool dispatch mentioned
100%
100%
code-reviewer agent type
0%
100%
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED field
87%
100%
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS field
62%
100%
DESCRIPTION field
83%
100%
Critical: fix immediately
100%
100%
Important: fix before proceeding
100%
100%
Minor: note for later
100%
100%
Push-back criteria mentioned
100%
100%
No 'skip because simple' shortcut
100%
100%
5e92b71
Table of Contents
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.