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.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:secondsky/claude-skills --skill code-review86
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
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 covers both what the skill does and when to use it, earning good marks for completeness. However, it relies on somewhat abstract language ('technical rigor', 'verification gates') rather than concrete actions, and could benefit from more natural trigger terms that users would actually say when requesting code reviews.
Suggestions
Add more concrete actions like 'analyze diffs', 'identify bugs', 'check coding standards', 'verify test coverage' to improve specificity
Include common user trigger terms like 'PR review', 'review my code', 'check my changes', 'merge request', 'code feedback' to improve discoverability
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | 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 diff', 'check for security vulnerabilities', or 'verify test coverage'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly 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. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'code review', 'feedback', 'pull requests', but misses common variations users might say such as 'PR review', 'review my code', 'check my changes', 'code feedback', or 'merge request'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'code review' focus provides some distinction, but 'technical rigor' and 'verification gates' are vague enough to potentially overlap with testing, CI/CD, or general code quality skills. The 'subagent reviews' term is distinctive but niche. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an exemplary skill file that demonstrates excellent token efficiency while providing highly actionable guidance. The decision tree, clear protocols, and verification gates with concrete commands make this immediately usable. The progressive disclosure to reference files is well-executed with clear signaling.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, avoiding explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a purpose with no padding or unnecessary context about what code review is or why it matters. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable bash commands for verification, specific decision trees, and clear protocols. The verification commands section is copy-paste ready with actual commands like `bun test` and `bun run build`. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced (READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT) with explicit validation checkpoints. The verification gates protocol includes a clear gate function with mandatory steps and red flags for stopping. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a concise overview pointing to three well-signaled reference files. Each section provides enough context to understand when to use it while deferring full protocols to one-level-deep references like `references/code-review-reception.md`. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%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.
- 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.