code-review-checklist
tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill code-review-checklistComprehensive checklist for conducting thorough code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, and maintainability
Validation
75%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_trigger_hint | Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...') | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
body_steps | No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow | Warning |
Total | 12 / 16 Passed | |
Implementation
42%This skill provides comprehensive, actionable checklists with good code examples, but suffers from severe verbosity and poor organization. It explains many concepts Claude already knows and presents everything in one massive document rather than using progressive disclosure. The workflow lacks validation checkpoints for handling review findings.
Suggestions
Remove explanatory sections like 'Overview', 'When to Use This Skill', and 'How It Works' - Claude knows what code review is and when to use a checklist
Split detailed checklists (Security, Performance, Code Quality) into separate reference files and keep only a condensed master checklist in SKILL.md
Add a workflow for handling findings: prioritization criteria, when to block vs. suggest, how to track resolution
Condense the 'Best Practices' and 'Common Pitfalls' sections - these explain obvious reviewer behaviors that Claude already understands
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanations of concepts Claude already knows (what code review is, why it matters, basic security concepts). The 'When to Use This Skill' and 'How It Works' sections explain obvious things. Much content could be condensed to just the checklists. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable checklists with specific items to check. Code examples are complete and show clear good/bad patterns. The review comment templates are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed (Step 1-6) but lack validation checkpoints or feedback loops. No guidance on what to do when issues are found during review, or how to prioritize findings. The process is sequential but doesn't address iteration or error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with everything inline. The 'Related Skills' section references other files but the main content dumps all checklists, examples, templates, and resources in one massive document. Should split detailed checklists into separate reference files. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Activation
33%The description identifies its purpose as a code review checklist and mentions four review dimensions, but lacks concrete actions and explicit trigger guidance. Without a 'Use when...' clause, Claude cannot reliably determine when to select this skill over others. The trigger terms are limited and miss common user phrasings for requesting code reviews.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks for a code review, PR review, pull request feedback, or wants their code checked for issues'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say: 'PR', 'pull request', 'review my code', 'check my changes', 'code feedback'
Replace abstract categories with concrete actions: 'Checks for security vulnerabilities, identifies performance bottlenecks, verifies error handling, and assesses code readability'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code reviews) and lists four areas of focus (functionality, security, performance, maintainability), but doesn't describe concrete actions like 'identify vulnerabilities', 'check for memory leaks', or 'verify test coverage'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what (a checklist for code reviews) but completely lacks any 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'code reviews' which users would naturally say, but misses common variations like 'PR review', 'pull request', 'review my code', 'code feedback', or 'review changes'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to code reviews, but could overlap with general coding assistance skills or security-focused skills; the broad categories (security, performance) could trigger conflicts with more specialized skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
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.