review-scale-and-resilience

Review a change for what happens when there is more of it than expected, and when something it depends on fails. Use as one lens in a code review run.

Quality

66%

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 ./code-review/skills/review-scale-and-resilience/SKILL.md

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

Quality

Content

86%Scale 1-5

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

This is a high-quality, lean skill that clearly defines a review lens for scale and resilience concerns. It excels at conciseness and structure, providing specific criteria for what to examine, what to report, and what to ignore. The only notable gap is the absence of concrete examples (e.g., a sample finding or review comment) that would make it fully actionable.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 brief example findings showing the expected reporting format (e.g., 'Per-row: each update triggers a full reindex; at 10k rows this dominates request latency. Contain with batch indexing or async queue.')

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Every sentence carries unique, non-obvious information. No explanation of basic concepts Claude already knows. The content is dense with domain-specific guidance (e.g., 'old and new code run concurrently', 'cold-path inefficiencies') without padding.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific guidance on what to look for (fan-out operations, batch processing, duplicate execution), what to report (the scaling dimension, the fault trigger, the containment), and what to skip. However, it lacks executable examples like sample review comments or code patterns that illustrate the issues.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The workflow is implicitly sequenced: scope → method (prioritize paths, derive failures, check project rules) → threshold (what to report vs skip) → reporting format. The sequence is clear and logical, though it lacks explicit numbered steps or validation checkpoints. As a review lens (non-destructive, analytical task), the absence of feedback loops is acceptable.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	For a focused, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting) that are easy to navigate. The reference to AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md chains is appropriate and one level deep.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

46%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 establishes a niche as a focused code review lens for scalability and fault tolerance concerns, and it includes a 'when' clause. However, it uses overly abstract, non-standard language instead of concrete technical terms that users would naturally use, making it harder for Claude to match and harder to distinguish from related skills.

Suggestions

Replace vague phrases with concrete technical terms: instead of 'more of it than expected' use 'overflow, high load, scalability issues'; instead of 'something it depends on fails' use 'dependency failures, error handling, fault tolerance, resilience'.

Add natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'robustness review', 'failure modes', 'edge cases', 'error paths', 'graceful degradation'.

List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Checks for missing error handling, unbounded inputs, retry logic, and cascading failure risks'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description hints at a domain (code review) and mentions two abstract concepts ('more than expected' and 'dependency failure'), but these are vague and not concrete actions. It doesn't name specific techniques like checking for overflow, rate limiting, error handling, or fault tolerance.	2 / 5
Completeness	It answers 'what' (review for scale/overload and dependency failure scenarios) and 'when' ('Use as one lens in a code review run'), though both are somewhat vague. The 'when' clause is present and explicit but lacks concrete trigger phrases a user might say.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The phrase 'code review' is a relevant trigger term, but the core concepts are described in roundabout, non-standard language ('more of it than expected' instead of 'scalability', 'overflow', 'load'; 'something it depends on fails' instead of 'error handling', 'fault tolerance', 'resilience'). Users would not naturally phrase requests this way.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It positions itself as a specific 'lens' within code review, which helps distinguish it from a general code review skill. However, the vague language ('more of it than expected', 'something it depends on fails') could overlap with other review-oriented skills focused on robustness, error handling, or performance.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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: code-review/skills/review-scale-and-resilience/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.