review-pull-request

Use when reviewing a pull request, to check for logic bugs, style consistency, and security concerns and summarise the findings for the author.

Quality

63%

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 ./plugin-creator/evals/scenario-5/inputs/install-cache/tessl/pr-reviewer/skills/review-pull-request/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%Scale 1-5

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

The skill is admirably concise and well-structured for its simplicity, but it lacks actionability — there are no examples of expected output format, severity categories, or what a good review comment looks like. It reads more like a checklist reminder than a skill that teaches Claude how to perform the task effectively.

Suggestions

Add an example of expected output showing findings grouped by severity (e.g., critical/warning/nit) with a concrete review comment for each level.

Provide specific guidance on what constitutes each severity level and what format the summary should take (e.g., markdown table, bulleted list with file/line references).

Include an example of a 'concrete suggestion' — e.g., showing a before/after code snippet alongside the review comment — so the output quality is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely lean — every line is a direct instruction with no unnecessary explanation. Claude already knows what PRs, diffs, edge cases, and security concerns are, and the skill doesn't waste tokens explaining them.	5 / 5
Actionability	The steps are high-level directives without concrete examples of what a review comment should look like, how to group by severity, or what constitutes a 'concrete suggestion.' There are no code snippets, example outputs, or specific patterns to follow.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps are listed in a logical sequence, but there are no validation checkpoints, no guidance on what to do if the diff is too large, and no feedback loop for verifying findings. The sequence is clear but lacks depth for a multi-step review process.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references. The content is well-organized as a concise numbered list, which is appropriate for its scope.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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.

The description provides a reasonable 'when' clause and identifies the core actions (checking for bugs, style, security), but lacks specificity in concrete outputs and misses common trigger synonyms like 'PR', 'code review', or 'merge request'. It is functional but could be strengthened with more natural trigger terms and additional detail about what the skill produces.

Suggestions

Add common synonyms and abbreviations as trigger terms: 'PR', 'code review', 'merge request', 'diff review'.

Expand the 'what' with more specific actions, e.g., 'Analyzes diffs for logic bugs, style violations, and security vulnerabilities, then produces a structured summary with severity ratings for the author.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (pull request review) and lists a few concrete actions (check for logic bugs, style consistency, security concerns, summarise findings), but lacks detail on how these are performed or what outputs are produced beyond a summary.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has both 'what' (check for logic bugs, style consistency, security concerns and summarise findings) and 'when' (when reviewing a pull request), though the 'when' could be more explicit with additional trigger scenarios like 'when the user asks for a code review' or mentions PRs.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes 'pull request', 'logic bugs', 'style consistency', and 'security concerns' which are relevant keywords, but misses common synonyms and variations like 'PR', 'code review', 'diff', 'merge request', or 'CR'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Fairly distinct with its focus on pull request review combining logic bugs, style, and security, but could overlap with general code review or security audit skills. The combination of concerns helps differentiate it somewhat.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: tesslio/product-plugins
Path: plugin-creator/evals/scenario-5/inputs/install-cache/tessl/pr-reviewer/skills/review-pull-request/SKILL.md
Commit: 37f0a21

Reviewed: 1 day 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.