CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-changes

Perform a structured code review using change detection and impact

60

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/review-changes/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is concise and highly actionable with concrete tool calls, and it is well-organized for a short single-purpose skill. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the first-step guidance contradicts the token-efficiency rules and lacks explicit validation checkpoints before the merge recommendation.

Suggestions

Resolve the sequencing contradiction: make 'get_minimal_context(task=...)' the explicit first step, or restate the rule so the Steps and Token Efficiency Rules agree.

Add a validation checkpoint before the merge recommendation, e.g. 'Confirm every high-risk change has coverage status assessed before recommending merge.'

Make the step-3 loop explicit ('For each high-risk function returned by detect_changes_tool, ...') so iteration over the change set is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and directive — numbered tool calls, a tight output-format list, and operational token rules with no concept explanation Claude already knows; every section earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

It names concrete tools with parameters (e.g. 'query_graph_tool with pattern="tests_for"', 'get_minimal_context(task="<your task>")', 'detail_level="minimal"'), giving copy-paste-ready executable guidance rather than vague direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence exists, but Step 1 ('Run detect_changes_tool') contradicts the Token Efficiency Rules ('ALWAYS start with get_minimal_context before any other graph tool'), and there are no explicit validation checkpoints before issuing merge recommendations.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and has no external references; it is organized into well-labeled sections (Steps, Output Format, Token Efficiency Rules), which satisfies the simple-skill exception for a top score.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 cleanly states what the skill does but omits any explicit 'when to use it' trigger guidance and relies on somewhat technical phrasing, leaving every dimension at the mid-level. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural terms like 'PR' or 'diff' would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or diffs for risk and test coverage.'

Replace jargon ('change detection and impact') with natural user terms and add variations like 'PR', 'diff', or 'untested changes' to improve trigger-term quality.

List concrete review actions (e.g. 'scores change risk, maps affected flows, checks test coverage, recommends merge') to reach specificity level 3.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('code review') and two methods ('change detection and impact'), but does not list multiple specific concrete actions like the score-3 anchor; it stays at 'domain and some actions, not comprehensive'.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does ('Perform a structured code review using change detection and impact') but includes no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the guidelines completeness is capped at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'code review' is a natural term a user would say, but 'change detection and impact' leans toward technical jargon and common variations ('PR', 'diff', 'changes') are missing, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The knowledge-graph/change-detection framing gives it a niche, but the broad 'code review' category could still overlap with other review skills, fitting 'somewhat specific but could still overlap'.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
tirth8205/code-review-graph
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.