CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-plugin-content

Review a change to the contents of an agent plugin (its skills, references, rules, evals, manifest, README, and the scripts and hooks it bundles) for whether the plugin ships, whether an agent picks the right skill, and whether an agent following it acts correctly and safely. Use as one lens in a code review run.

1.08x
Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.08x

Average score across 18 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is tessl/code-review

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

An exceptionally well-written instruction-only skill: every section steers the reviewing agent's judgment toward concrete checks and away from known false-positive patterns, with an explicit pre-report verification loop. The only structural note is that at its length a small reference split is possible, though the content is cohesive enough that inlining is defensible.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the plugin definition at the top is scope-defining, not padding. A few long boundary sentences ('An agent is not a program...' paragraph) could be tightened slightly. Not 5 because minor trimming opportunities exist; well above 3 since almost every sentence steers an action.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully directive, concrete guidance throughout: read the manifest/README/skill as one unit, trace each named thing against the repository at the change's head, read descriptions beside siblings, follow instructions and note the first wrong action, start scripts from the instruction that runs it. Instruction-only skill whose guidance is specific and executable with no vagueness.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Method section gives a clearly sequenced process with explicit checkpoints ('note the first point where it would act wrongly or have to guess') and an explicit validation loop before reporting ('Before reporting that a skill permits or misses something, check the rest of the unit for the statement that answers it'). Reporting is fully templated. Not a destructive/batch skill, so no validation cap applies; not 4 because checkpoints and the pre-report verification loop are explicit, not implicit.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so the skill is self-contained; sections (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting) are well-organized and navigation is easy. At ~86 lines it exceeds the simple-skill exception (under 50 lines) for a 5, and parts of the Threshold section could conceivably live in a reference file. Not 5 because there is no reference split despite the skill being over the simple-skill line; not 3 because structure and organization are strong with everything appropriately placed.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong description: specific, comprehensive, third-person, and explicitly stating both what it does and when to use it. The main gap is trigger-term breadth — natural user phrasings like 'diff', 'PR', or the plugin directory name would strengthen routing.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger variations users would say, e.g. 'Use when reviewing changes to agent plugins, skills, or .tessl-plugin directories, including diffs and PRs that touch them.'

Make the 'when' clause a concrete trigger condition rather than a positional note ('Use as one lens in a code review run'), naming the situations that call for this lens specifically.

Consider mentioning the plugin directory name (.tessl-plugin) as a keyword so searches for it route to this skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Enumerates the concrete artifacts reviewed (skills, references, rules, evals, manifest, README, scripts, hooks) and the specific review concerns — whether the plugin ships, whether the right skill is picked, whether an agent following it acts correctly and safely. Comprehensive coverage of concrete actions with no generic filler.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (reviews plugin contents for shipping, selection, correctness, safety) and 'when' ('Use as one lens in a code review run') are explicitly present. Not 5 because the 'when' clause is positional rather than a concrete user trigger phrase; well above 3 where 'when' would be missing or only implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains good natural keywords a user would say ('plugin', 'skills', 'code review run', 'manifest'), but misses common variations and synonyms such as 'diff', 'PR', '.tessl-plugin', or 'agent skills'. Not 5 because a few natural trigger terms users would actually say are absent; not 3 because coverage goes beyond the domain name with several relevant natural terms.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A very specific niche — reviewing the contents of an agent plugin as one lens in a code review — with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Clear niche, minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

tesslio/product-plugins

Path

code-review/skills/review-plugin-content/SKILL.md

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.