code-reviewer

Code Reviewer Agent. Frontend/Backend 코드 리뷰를 담당합니다. 코드 품질, 테스트 커버리지, 보안, 성능을 검토합니다.

Quality

37%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Discovery

32%

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 provides a reasonable overview of code review capabilities across multiple dimensions (quality, testing, security, performance) but lacks explicit trigger guidance that would help Claude know when to select this skill. The Korean/English mix is acceptable but the description would benefit from more concrete actions and a clear 'Use when...' clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'code review', 'PR review', 'pull request', 'review my code', '코드 검토'

Make capabilities more concrete by specifying actions like 'identifies security vulnerabilities', 'suggests performance optimizations', 'checks test coverage gaps'

Include common file extensions or frameworks to improve trigger matching (e.g., '.ts', '.tsx', 'React', 'Node.js')

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (code review) and lists some actions (코드 품질, 테스트 커버리지, 보안, 성능 검토), but these are categories rather than concrete specific actions like 'identify security vulnerabilities' or 'suggest performance optimizations'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (code review for quality, tests, security, performance) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms like 'Code Reviewer', '코드 리뷰', 'Frontend/Backend', but missing common variations users might say such as 'PR review', 'pull request', 'code quality check', or file extensions.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Somewhat specific to code review but could overlap with general coding skills, security analysis skills, or testing skills. The Frontend/Backend distinction helps but isn't strongly differentiated.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

42%

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

This skill provides comprehensive code review checklists and good example comments, but suffers from being overly verbose and monolithic. The content would benefit from splitting checklists into separate reference files and adding more concrete, executable guidance for the actual review process rather than just listing what to check.

Suggestions

Split Frontend, Backend, and Common checklists into separate reference files (e.g., FRONTEND_CHECKLIST.md, BACKEND_CHECKLIST.md) and link to them from the main skill

Add explicit validation steps with feedback loops, such as 'If automated checks fail: 1. Review error output 2. Document blocking issues 3. Request fixes before proceeding'

Remove explanatory parentheticals like '(Readability)', '(Maintainability)' - Claude knows these terms

Add a concrete example of reviewing a specific code snippet end-to-end, showing how to apply the checklists in practice

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy. The checklists are comprehensive but could be more condensed - many items are self-explanatory to Claude (e.g., explaining what DRY means, basic concepts like 'readability').	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete checklists and example commands for automation tools, but the core review process is checklist-based rather than executable. The bash commands are copy-paste ready, but the actual review workflow lacks specific step-by-step instructions for how to perform the review itself.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The review process diagram shows a clear sequence, but lacks validation checkpoints and feedback loops. There's no guidance on what to do if automated checks fail, or how to handle disagreements in review. The process is listed but not actionable with explicit verification steps.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a monolithic wall of text with all checklists inline. Frontend, Backend, and common checklists could be separate files. The output location reference at the end suggests external structure but the skill itself doesn't link to any supporting documents.	1 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: shaul1991/shaul-agents-plugin
Commit: 9242c58

Reviewed: 29 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.