CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comprehensive-review-full-review

Use when working with comprehensive review full review

41

Quality

41%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/comprehensive-review-full-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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

The body delivers a genuinely actionable, well-sequenced multi-agent review workflow with concrete prompts, but it is verbose and monolithic, relying on one broken reference rather than proper progressive disclosure. Adding an explicit validation feedback loop and tightening boilerplate would raise the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Tighten repeated boilerplate (e.g. factor the recurring 'Use Task tool with subagent_type=' header into a single stated convention) and trim the 'Extended thinking' paragraph to essentials.

Add an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint after each phase (e.g. 'If a phase finds critical issues, halt and surface them before proceeding to the next phase') to satisfy the destructive/batch feedback-loop expectation.

Either create resources/implementation-playbook.md and split the per-phase prompt templates into it, or remove the dangling reference so navigation is one-level-deep and real.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts, but it is padded with repeated 'Use Task tool with subagent_type=...' boilerplate and an inflated 'Extended thinking' paragraph that could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete subagent_types and full, copy-paste-ready prompt strings with explicit placeholders ({phase1_architecture_context}, $ARGUMENTS), matching the 'fully executable guidance; specific examples' anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four phases are clearly sequenced with cross-phase context handoffs and Success Criteria, but there is no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop for risky findings, so checkpoints remain implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Structure exists via phases, but the body is largely a monolithic wall of text and the single reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' is a dangling path with no resources directory present.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

17%

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 a near-empty tautology that restates the skill name without specifying capabilities, natural triggers, or a distinct niche. It does carry a minimal 'Use when' structure but conveys no usable information to disambiguate the skill.

Suggestions

Replace the description with concrete actions, e.g. 'Orchestrate multi-agent code reviews across security, performance, testing, and architecture dimensions. Use when the user asks for a thorough or comprehensive code review.'

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say ('code review', 'security audit', 'review my PR', 'check code quality') instead of the repeated 'comprehensive review full review' phrase.

State both what the skill does and when to invoke it explicitly, and make the niche distinct enough to avoid conflict with single-purpose review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Use when working with comprehensive review full review' names no concrete actions, only a tautological phrase; it matches the 'vague or no actions; abstract language' anchor.

1 / 3

Completeness

A 'Use when...' clause is present, but the 'what does this do' half is absent and the 'when' is tautological, so it is above the missing-both anchor but well below explicit both.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'comprehensive review full review' is garbled filler rather than natural keywords a user would say, offering no common variations or domain terms.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The phrase is extremely generic and overlaps with countless review-related skills, matching the 'very generic; would conflict with many skills' anchor.

1 / 3

Total

5

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
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.