CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

resolve-pr-feedback

Resolve GitHub PR review feedback with source-backed triage, fixes, autogoal plan state, mandatory autoreview closeout, replies, and thread resolution.

68

Quality

83%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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

The content is a tightly written, highly actionable multi-mode workflow with concrete commands, explicit validation checkpoints, feedback loops, and well-organized sections backed by real bundle scripts. It is a strong example of an instruction-heavy skill body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and instruction-only, assuming Claude's competence without explaining what a PR or review thread is; every section earns its place. It is not a 2 because there is no padded concept explanation and the length reflects genuine multi-mode complexity rather than verbosity, though minor restatement of the resolve-API limitation across URL types could be tightened.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance — exact "gh api ... --jq" filters, bash script invocations with argument signatures, and printf-piped replies; not a 2 because there is no pseudocode or missing key details.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Full Mode is an 11-step sequence with explicit validation (step 6), a fix-and-rerun feedback loop, an autoreview closeout gate (step 7), verify re-fetch (step 10), and a repeat limit (step 11); not a 2 because checkpoints and error-recovery loops are explicit.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-organized SKILL.md with clearly labeled sections and references to real, verified bundle scripts (get-pr-comments, get-thread-for-comment, reply-to-pr-thread, resolve-pr-thread) rather than nested documentation chains; not a 2 because references are one-level and clearly signaled.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 is specific and distinct, clearly stating what the skill does with a strong list of concrete actions. Its main weakness is the missing explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance and reliance on internal jargon over natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause naming natural triggers (e.g., "Use when addressing GitHub PR review comments, unresolved review threads, or a specific PR comment URL").

Replace or supplement internal jargon ("autogoal", "autoreview") with user-facing terms like "code review" and "PR comments" so the description reads as something a user would naturally say.

Cover common trigger variations such as "code review feedback", "address review comments", and "resolve review threads".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "triage, fixes, autogoal plan state, mandatory autoreview closeout, replies, and thread resolution" — against a named domain (GitHub PR review feedback), matching the score-3 anchor; it is not a 2 because the action set is comprehensive rather than partial.

3 / 3

Completeness

The "what" is explicit but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the guidelines state caps completeness at 2; it is not a 1 because the capability description itself is strong.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural terms ("GitHub PR review feedback", "review comments", "review threads") but leans on internal jargon ("autogoal", "autoreview") that users would not say and omits common variations like "code review" or "PR comments"; not a 3 due to missing common variations.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Resolve GitHub PR review feedback" is a clear niche scoped by thread-resolution and autoreview-closeout context, unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills; it is not a 2 because the scope is well-bounded rather than overlapping.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
udecode/plate
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.