CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

receiving-review

Enforces rigorous technical evaluation of code review feedback before implementation -- verifying suggestions against the codebase, pushing back when wrong, clarifying ambiguity, and avoiding performative agreement. Use when processing PR review comments, inline suggestions, change requests, reviewer feedback, or any list of code fixes to address. Applies to feedback from human partners and external reviewers alike. DO NOT TRIGGER when writing a review of someone else's code.

75

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

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

This is a strong, well-structured behavioral skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for handling code review feedback. Its main strength is the abundance of concrete good/bad examples and clear decision trees. Its primary weakness is moderate redundancy across sections — the anti-performative-agreement message is hammered in at least four separate places, and the common mistakes table largely duplicates earlier content.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'Forbidden Responses', 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback', and relevant rows of 'Common Mistakes' into a single section to reduce redundancy and save tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is mostly efficient and well-structured, but includes some redundancy — the 'Forbidden Responses' and 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback' sections overlap significantly, and the 'Common Mistakes' table largely restates points already covered in detail above. Some sections like the gratitude prohibition are over-explained ('If you catch yourself about to write Thanks: DELETE IT').

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance with specific examples of good and bad responses, exact pseudocode decision trees, a clear implementation order, and even a specific GitHub API command for thread replies. The examples are copy-paste ready behavioral templates rather than vague descriptions.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced with the 6-step response pattern, explicit validation checkpoints (verify against codebase, test each fix individually, verify no regressions), and clear feedback loops (clarify before implementing, push back if wrong, correct your pushback if you were wrong). The implementation order section provides explicit prioritization for multi-item feedback.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a standalone skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections with logical progression from overview to specific scenarios. The sections are appropriately sized and navigable via headers, and no content needs to be split into separate files given the skill's scope.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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

This is an excellent skill description that clearly defines a specific behavioral skill (critically evaluating received code review feedback rather than blindly accepting it), provides comprehensive trigger terms covering natural user language, and explicitly disambiguates from the most likely conflicting skill (writing code reviews). The negative trigger clause is a particularly strong addition that reduces conflict risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'verifying suggestions against the codebase', 'pushing back when wrong', 'clarifying ambiguity', 'avoiding performative agreement'. These are clear, actionable behaviors.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what ('rigorous technical evaluation of code review feedback... verifying, pushing back, clarifying') and when ('Use when processing PR review comments, inline suggestions, change requests, reviewer feedback, or any list of code fixes to address') with explicit trigger guidance and even a negative trigger.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'PR review comments', 'inline suggestions', 'change requests', 'reviewer feedback', 'code fixes'. Also includes a negative trigger ('DO NOT TRIGGER when writing a review') which helps disambiguation.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive niche — specifically about responding to received code review feedback, not writing reviews. The explicit 'DO NOT TRIGGER' clause for writing reviews of others' code directly addresses the most likely conflict scenario.

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
shousper/claude-kit
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.