CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

the-high-signal-review

Run a high-signal review of the current workspace diff or PR in Stave. Use when the user asks for "code review", "PR review", "review this diff", "high-signal review", "strict review", "inline comments only for real issues", or wants only objective bugs and applicable policy violations with validation before commenting.

71

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A tight, well-sequenced orchestration skill: every step is actionable, validation is an explicit gate with rejection criteria, and there is no padding. The only improvement space is providing the exact git-diff fallback command and more copy-ready commands for the reviewer-dispatch step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~40 lean lines with zero padding: every line is an instruction ("Prefer the workspace diff tool", "Only the main agent posts comments", "Do not mention the fallback path unless it materially affected the review"). It explains nothing Claude already knows, matching the anchor-5 'every token earns its place' profile; it is clearly above the anchor-4 case, which still contains trimmable over-explanation.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable guidance dominates: an exact command "gh pr view --json number,title,body,baseRefName,headRefName", an explicit precedence order "AGENTS.md > AGENTS.local.md > CLAUDE.md", a defined comment format, and explicit in/out criteria for findings. It falls short of anchor 5 because the git fallback ("diff HEAD against the merge base plus current uncommitted changes") and the reviewer-dispatch steps are described but not given as copy-ready commands.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly numbered steps with an explicit validation gate: "Validate every issue before commenting... Reject anything not clearly real, not in changed code, or not backed by an applicable policy", plus deduplication before validation and an explicit empty-outcome rule ("If nothing survives validation, say so explicitly"). Validation is the centerpiece of the workflow rather than a minor checkpoint, matching anchor 5; the destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply since validation is present.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, has no bundle files, and is organized into clean sections (intro, Workflow with five sub-steps, Fallbacks). Per the simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections alone merit 5; the mentioned files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) are workspace policy inputs, not nested skill references.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

83%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong description that explicitly states what the skill does and when to use it, with mostly natural trigger phrases. Its main gap is modest: only one core action is named and a few common synonyms for triggering a review are absent.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Run a high-signal review of the current workspace diff or PR in Stave" names the domain and the primary action, and "only objective bugs and applicable policy violations with validation before commenting" concretely bounds what counts as a finding. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because it has a single main verb — no list of several distinct concrete actions like the anchor-5 example.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is "Run a high-signal review of the current workspace diff or PR in Stave" with a defined output bar, and the "when" is an explicit "Use when the user asks for..." clause listing concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 example's structure exactly and clearly exceeds the anchor-4 case where the 'when' could be more specific.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes natural phrases users would actually say: "code review", "PR review", "review this diff", "high-signal review", "strict review", "inline comments only for real issues". A few common variations (e.g. "review this branch", "review my changes", "critique") are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggers like "high-signal review", "strict review", and "inline comments only for real issues" carve out a clear niche (false-positive-filtered review in Stave), but the very common phrases "code review" and "PR review" overlap with generic review skills, giving minor conflict risk — anchor 4, not the minimal-risk anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
sendbird/stave
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.