code-review

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.

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/code-review/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

67%

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 adequately communicates its purpose around code review with verification gates and includes an explicit 'Use for...' clause, which is good for completeness. However, the specific capabilities listed are somewhat abstract rather than concrete actions, and the trigger terms could be expanded to cover more natural user phrasings. The niche is identifiable but could be more sharply distinguished from general coding or git workflow skills.

Suggestions

Replace abstract phrases like 'technical rigor and verification gates' with concrete actions such as 'enforce review checklists, validate test coverage, flag incomplete implementations'.

Add more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'PR review', 'review my code', 'merge request', 'code feedback', or 'diff analysis'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (code review) and mentions some actions like 'receiving feedback', 'requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews', and 'preventing false completion claims', but these are somewhat abstract rather than concrete, specific actions like 'analyze diffs', 'check for common bugs', or 'enforce style guidelines'.	2 / 3
Completeness	The description answers both 'what' (code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates) and 'when' (Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests), with explicit trigger guidance via the 'Use for...' clause.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant terms like 'code review', 'pull requests', 'feedback', and 'subagent reviews', but misses common natural variations users might say such as 'PR review', 'review my code', 'code feedback', 'merge request', or 'diff review'. The term 'verification gates' is more jargon than natural language.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	While 'code review' is a recognizable niche, the description could overlap with general coding assistance skills or PR/git workflow skills. The mention of 'subagent reviews' and 'verification gates' adds some distinctiveness, but 'receiving feedback' is quite broad and could conflict with other skills.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 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 skill with strong actionability and clear workflow sequences including verification gates. Its main weakness is moderate redundancy—the overview, decision tree, and protocol sections cover overlapping ground, and the inline protocol summaries may duplicate the referenced files. The progressive disclosure structure is sound in design but cannot be fully validated without the bundle files.

Suggestions

Trim the inline protocol summaries to be shorter teasers rather than near-complete descriptions, since the full protocols are in reference files—this would reduce redundancy and improve conciseness.

Remove explanatory phrases Claude doesn't need, such as defining what performative agreement looks like with multiple examples—a single concise rule suffices.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is reasonably efficient but has some redundancy—the overview section, the quick decision tree, and the protocol sections repeat similar information. The trigger lists and protocol summaries could be tighter, and some content (like explaining what performative agreement means) is unnecessary for Claude.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete bash commands for verification, specific git commands for requesting reviews, explicit anti-patterns with ❌/✅ markers, a clear decision tree, and step-by-step processes. The guidance is specific and directly executable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced (READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT; IDENTIFY → RUN → READ → VERIFY → CLAIM). The verification gates protocol includes explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops (fix Critical immediately, re-verify). The Iron Law creates a clear gate that prevents skipping steps.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references three separate files (references/code-review-reception.md, references/requesting-code-review.md, references/verification-before-completion.md) with clear signaling, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references exist. Additionally, the SKILL.md itself includes substantial protocol detail that partially duplicates what the reference files presumably contain, blurring the line between overview and detail.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 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: secondsky/claude-skills
Commit: b30de6b

Reviewed: 12 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.