code-review-checklist

Comprehensive checklist for conducting thorough code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, and maintainability

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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.

The content is well-structured and actionable with concrete examples and templates, but it is heavily padded with redundant checklists and explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Splitting reference material into bundle files and trimming redundancy would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Cut redundant teaching of basic concepts (what edge cases/DRY/magic numbers are) and remove the duplicated 'Complete Review Checklist' that repeats the per-area checklists.

Move the worked examples, review comment templates, and best-practices lists into separate bundle files referenced one level deep, leaving SKILL.md as a lean overview.

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the review workflow (e.g. 'Run tests/linters and confirm they pass before approving') to lift workflow clarity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose, re-explaining concepts Claude already knows (edge cases, DRY, magic numbers, basic input validation) and repeating the same checklists in both the per-area examples and the 'Complete Review Checklist' section, with padded 'Pro Tip' and redundant best-practices/do-not lists.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides mostly executable guidance: concrete good/bad JavaScript examples, named tools (npm audit, Snyk, OWASP Top 10), review comment templates, and external links, with only minor gaps in specificity.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 6-step sequence (Steps 1-6) and a phased Complete Review Checklist are present, but validation checkpoints and feedback loops are only implicit, so the sequence lacks explicit checkpoints.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single ~440-line monolithic file with section headers, but content that could live in separate files (templates, worked examples) is inlined and there are no one-level-deep bundle references, so structure is only moderate.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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.

The description is clear and reasonably specific about scope but omits explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and lacks synonyms users naturally say. It is distinguishable from other skills but would benefit from a concrete 'when' clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers, e.g. 'Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code audits, or establishing team review standards.'

Include common synonyms users say such as 'PR review', 'pull request review', and 'code audit' to improve trigger matching.

Tighten the action language to list concrete actions ('run a review checklist across functionality, security, performance, and maintainability') rather than the generic 'conducting thorough code reviews'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('conducting thorough code reviews') and lists four specific coverage areas (functionality, security, performance, maintainability), but the action verb itself is singular and generic rather than a list of several concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does (a checklist for code reviews across four areas) but provides no 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'code reviews' is a relevant natural keyword, but synonyms and common variations users say ('pull request review', 'PR review', 'code audit') are absent.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Code review checklist' carves a mostly distinct niche with minimal overlap risk against adjacent skills, though it is not as sharply scoped as an anchor-5 example.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Path: skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md
Commit: b1aebac

Reviewed: ~17 hours 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.