comprehensive-review-full-review
Use when working with comprehensive review full review
Overall
score
35%
Does it follow best practices?
Validation for skill structure
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill comprehensive-review-full-reviewActivation
0%This description is severely deficient across all dimensions. It appears to be malformed or incomplete, containing redundant phrasing ('review full review') and no actual description of capabilities. The description provides no useful information for Claude to determine when to select this skill.
Suggestions
Define what type of review this skill performs (e.g., code review, document review, PR review) and list 2-3 specific actions it can take.
Add domain-specific trigger terms that users would naturally say, such as file types, tool names, or common phrases like 'review my PR', 'check this code', etc.
Rewrite the 'Use when' clause with meaningful conditions, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for code review, wants feedback on pull requests, or mentions reviewing changes.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Comprehensive review full review' is abstract and redundant language that doesn't describe what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' entirely. While it has a 'Use when' clause, the trigger condition 'working with comprehensive review full review' is nonsensical and provides no meaningful guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only keyword is 'review' repeated twice, which is extremely generic. No natural variations, domain-specific terms, or file types are mentioned that users would naturally say. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'review' is extremely generic and could conflict with code review, document review, PR review, performance review, or any other review-related skill. There is no clear niche established. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%This skill attempts to orchestrate a comprehensive code review workflow but suffers from significant verbosity and over-explanation. While the phased structure is logical and tool references are specific, the content explains concepts Claude already understands rather than providing lean, executable guidance. The workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints between phases.
Suggestions
Reduce content by 60-70% by removing explanatory text about what security scanning, performance profiling, and code quality analysis are - Claude knows these concepts
Add explicit validation gates between phases (e.g., 'Before Phase 2: Verify Phase 1 agents completed successfully and review critical findings')
Move detailed phase descriptions to separate files (e.g., phase1-quality.md, phase2-security.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise orchestration overview
Replace descriptive prompts with executable examples showing actual tool commands or API calls (e.g., specific SonarQube CLI commands, Snyk scan invocations)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanations Claude already knows (what security scanning is, what performance profiling does). The extended thinking block and detailed phase descriptions add significant token overhead without proportional value. Many sections explain concepts rather than providing actionable instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides structured prompts for subagents and lists specific tools (SonarQube, Snyk, GitLeaks), but lacks executable code examples. The guidance is more descriptive than executable - it tells Claude what to analyze rather than showing concrete commands or code to run. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 4-phase sequential structure with dependencies noted between phases. However, lacks explicit validation checkpoints - no 'verify before proceeding' steps or error recovery guidance. The success criteria section is a checklist but doesn't integrate into the workflow as validation gates. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References one external file (resources/implementation-playbook.md) but the main content is a monolithic wall of text. The detailed phase descriptions could be split into separate files with the SKILL.md providing just an overview and navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Validation — 13 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
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 | 13 / 16 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.