code-review-checklist

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

Quality

50%

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%

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

The content is highly actionable with concrete bad/good examples and templates, but it is far too verbose — re-explaining basics Claude knows and duplicating the checklist twice — and lacks external reference structure. Trimming redundant explanation and splitting large checklists into reference files would improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Remove concept explanations Claude already knows (e.g., definitions of SQL injection, DRY, N+1 queries) and keep only the checklist items and examples that add new value.

De-duplicate the checklist: it appears both as worked Examples and again as the Complete Review Checklist — consolidate into one authoritative list.

Move the large example checklists and review-comment templates into a separate reference file (e.g., references/checklists.md) and link to it from a concise overview, improving progressive disclosure and token budget.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~450-line body restates concepts Claude already knows (SQL injection, DRY, parameterized queries, edge cases) and duplicates the full checklist across both the Examples and Complete Review Checklist sections, making it padded rather than lean.	1 / 3
Actionability	It provides complete, executable bad/good code pairs (input validation, parameterized queries, naming, function decomposition) plus ready-to-use checkbox lists and review-comment templates that are copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The six-step How It Works sequence is clear, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., run a scanner then re-check), so it is a list of review dimensions rather than a gated process.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	There are no bundle files or external references; the skill is one monolithic file with examples and full checklists inlined that could be split out, though internal section organization is reasonable.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 clearly identifies the code-review domain and its coverage areas, but it lacks concrete actions and any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance. Adding a trigger clause and more specific verbs would lift it from a solid 2 toward 3 across dimensions.

Suggestions

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

Replace the abstract coverage list with concrete actions the skill performs, e.g. 'Walks through functionality, security, performance, and maintainability checks and flags issues with bad/good examples.'

Include common user phrasings ('PR review', 'code audit', 'reviewing staged changes') to strengthen trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('code reviews') and coverage areas ('functionality, security, performance, and maintainability') but lists no concrete actions the skill performs, so it sits at the 'names domain and some actions' anchor rather than the multi-action level 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly answers 'what' (a comprehensive code review checklist) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger for 'when', so per guidelines completeness is capped at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The natural term 'code reviews' is present, but common variations a user would actually say ('pull request', 'PR review', 'code audit') are missing from the description, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Code review checklist' is a recognizable niche but could still overlap with general code-review skills, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' rather than the firmly-distinct level 3.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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/antigravity-awesome-skills
Path: skills/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md
Commit: a3068b7

Reviewed: 3 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.