CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

receiving-code-review

Evaluate code review feedback on its technical merits, verify each suggestion against the codebase, then implement the fixes that hold up and push back with reasoning on the ones that don't. This is the internal review-fix stage of the delivery-flow workflow, run when delivery-flow receives feedback from a reviewer. It is not a standalone entry point, so do not activate it directly for a one-off "address this review comment" or "respond to PR feedback" request; use delivery-flow for those instead.

73

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

The canonical home for this skill is receiving-code-review in obra/superpowers

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.

A tight, highly actionable behavioral skill with a clear sequenced workflow, explicit validation checkpoints, and concrete template language. The only real costs are minor redundancy (repeated examples and forbidden-phrase listings) and everything living in one ~200-line file with no progressive splitting.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicate 'Fix items 1-6' example — it appears almost verbatim in both 'Handling Unclear Feedback' and 'Real Examples'; keep one canonical instance.

Consolidate the forbidden/allowed phrase lists ('Forbidden Responses', 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback', 'Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback' ❌ sections) into a single reference table to cut repeated content.

Consider moving the 'Real Examples' section to a references/ file and keeping one compact example inline, which would shorten SKILL.md and improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and efficient — bullet lists, decision procedures, and a mistakes table with no filler explaining concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming is possible: the 'Fix items 1-6' unclear-item example appears nearly verbatim in both 'Handling Unclear Feedback' and 'Real Examples', and forbidden phrases ('You're absolutely right!', 'Great point!') are listed in two separate sections.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete for a behavioral skill: exact template responses ('I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.'), a literal gh api command for GitHub thread replies, a grep-based YAGNI check, and explicit ❌/✅ phrasing pairs. These are copy-paste-ready and cover the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Response Pattern gives a clear 6-step sequence (READ→UNDERSTAND→VERIFY→EVALUATE→RESPOND→IMPLEMENT) with a STOP checkpoint for unclear items, ordered implementation (blocking → simple → complex), per-fix testing, and regression verification. 'Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback' provides an explicit error-recovery feedback loop, and the Common Mistakes table acts as a checklist — so the batch-operation validation cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and the single SKILL.md is well-sectioned with clear headers and no buried references. It exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill exception at ~205 lines, and the duplicated example content suggests minor consolidation/split opportunities, keeping it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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: concrete third-person actions, an explicit activation condition, and deliberate boundary-setting against the most likely mis-trigger. The only gap is that natural user phrasings appear mainly as exclusions rather than positive triggers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full workflow: 'Evaluate code review feedback on its technical merits, verify each suggestion against the codebase, then implement the fixes that hold up and push back with reasoning on the ones that don't.' Third-person imperative voice is used throughout, so no voice penalty applies.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' is the four concrete actions (evaluate, verify, implement, push back), and the 'when' is stated as a concrete trigger clause — 'run when delivery-flow receives feedback from a reviewer' — plus explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present — 'code review feedback', 'address this review comment', 'respond to PR feedback' — giving good coverage. However, the user-facing phrases appear as negative exclusions ('do not activate it directly for...') rather than positive triggers, and the actual activation condition is workflow-internal ('delivery-flow receives feedback from a reviewer'), leaving a few natural trigger phrasings unstated.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche ('the internal review-fix stage of the delivery-flow workflow') and explicitly disambiguates from the nearest competing use case: 'It is not a standalone entry point, so do not activate it directly for a one-off "address this review comment" or "respond to PR feedback" request; use delivery-flow for those instead.' Conflict risk with standalone review-response skills is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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/tessl-eval-demo

Path

skills/sdlc-assurance/skills/receiving-code-review/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.