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?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

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.

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable instruction skill with clear workflows and validation checkpoints, written tersely without explaining concepts Claude already knows. Its only weakness is mild redundancy where an example and some rules recur across sections.

Suggestions

Remove the verbatim duplicate of the 'Fix 1-6 / unclear on 4,5' example from Real Examples (or from Handling Unclear Feedback) so it appears once, cutting tokens without losing clarity.

Consolidate the 'When To Push Back' criteria with the overlapping 'Common Mistakes' table rows to avoid restating the same pushback conditions twice.

Consider moving the 'Real Examples' block to a separate referenced file if the skill grows, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely lean with terse imperatives and no over-explanation of concepts Claude knows, but the 'Fix 1-6 / unclear on 4,5' example is repeated verbatim across two sections and pushback criteria overlap with the Common Mistakes table, so it could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance: exact forbidden and replacement phrases, a numbered READ→IMPLEMENT procedure, specific pushback criteria, reply templates, and a real `gh api .../replies` command, fully actionable for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced (six-step response pattern, five external-reviewer checks, prioritized implementation order) with explicit validation checkpoints (verify against codebase, test each fix, verify no regressions, clarify-all-first).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed for this self-contained behavioral skill; the body is organized into clearly headed sections that provide easy navigation, satisfying the well-organized-sections criterion.

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.

The description is specific, uses third person throughout, and clearly states both capabilities and triggering contexts, including a helpful negative trigger that disambiguates it from the reverse skill. It is concise yet comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('verifying suggestions against the codebase, pushing back when wrong, clarifying ambiguity, and avoiding performative agreement') rather than vague language, matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Enforces rigorous technical evaluation...') and when ('Use when processing PR review comments...'), with an explicit 'Use when' clause plus a negative 'DO NOT TRIGGER' trigger.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms users would say ('PR review comments, inline suggestions, change requests, reviewer feedback, or any list of code fixes'), giving good coverage of common phrasings.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'DO NOT TRIGGER when writing a review of someone else's code' clause carves out a clear niche and distinguishes it from the inverse review-authoring skill, making wrongful triggering unlikely.

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.

Validation16 / 16 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.