project-standards-reviewer

Always-on code-review persona. Audits changes against the project's own CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md standards -- frontmatter rules, reference inclusion, naming conventions, cross-platform portability, and tool selection policies.

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 ./.agents/skills/project-standards-reviewer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable instruction set that assumes Claude's competence and includes explicit quality gates for confidence and evidence. It is strong across all dimensions, with only minor trim and schema-definition gaps keeping it from full marks.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence -- it never explains what CLAUDE.md or code review is, and every section earns its place -- but a few bullets (e.g., the reference-inclusion entry) are long with layered parentheticals that could be trimmed, fitting the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor just below 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: specific violation examples ('TodoWrite instead of TaskCreate/TaskUpdate/TaskList', shell commands listed), numeric confidence thresholds (0.80+, 0.60-0.79), and an output skeleton, with only minor gaps since the per-finding JSON fields are not defined, placing it just below the fully copy-paste-ready 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is a clear sequenced process -- standards discovery (numbered), section matching, violation hunting, confidence calibration, evidence requirements, JSON output -- with quality gates that act as checkpoints (suppress <0.60, drop findings lacking cited rule + violation), matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the single-file body is well-organized into clearly headed sections (discovery, hunting, calibration, exclusions, evidence, output), giving good structure and easy navigation; it sits at 4 rather than 5 only because the 'What you're hunting for' section is dense and could arguably be split if the skill grew.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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.

The description clearly communicates what the skill does and carves out a distinct niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and leans on technical terms over natural user phrasing. Adding trigger guidance and common synonyms would raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when reviewing code changes for compliance with the project's CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md standards') to lift completeness above the 3 cap.

Include natural-language synonyms users actually say ('lint against project rules', 'standards compliance check') alongside the technical terms to improve trigger-term quality.

Lead with the core concrete action ('Audits code changes for violations of...') before listing categories so the primary verb reads as a specific action.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Audits changes against the project's own CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md standards') and lists several concrete audit categories -- frontmatter rules, reference inclusion, naming conventions, cross-platform portability, and tool selection policies -- with only minor coverage gaps, fitting the 'lists several specific actions' anchor rather than the fully comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance -- 'when' is only weakly implied by 'Always-on', so per the judging guideline completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant keywords are present ('code-review', 'CLAUDE.md', 'AGENTS.md', 'naming conventions', 'portability'), but it leans technical and misses natural synonyms a user might say ('lint', 'compliance check', 'standards check'), matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The scope is a clear niche (auditing against the project's own written standards files) with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, though the broad 'code-review persona' framing leaves minor overlap with general review skills, placing it just below the 5 anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

75%

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 — 12 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 2 missing	Warning

	Total	12 / 16 Passed

Repository: udecode/plate
Path: .agents/skills/project-standards-reviewer/SKILL.md
Commit: 9ec2c8e

Reviewed: 5 days 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.