CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-sweep

Mine review comments for broader diff-wide fixes instead of handling each line in isolation

58

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 ./.agents/skills/review-sweep/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

87%

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 concise, well-structured instruction skill with a concrete workflow and explicit good/bad target taxonomies. The only gap is the absence of an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop for the batch diff-wide application, which holds workflow_clarity at 2.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and sectioned (Goal, Core Rules, Good/Bad Sweep Targets, Workflow, Output Rule) with no padding and no explaining of concepts Claude already knows; tight rules like "Keep the blast radius proportional to confidence" earn their place. It matches the score-3 lean-and-efficient anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, specific guidance: an 8-step workflow and explicit good/bad target categories (input validation, index/key guards, redundant casts, brittle setup, etc.). The scoring note permits no code for instruction skills when guidance is actionable, so this reaches score 3.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced with decision gates (steps 4-6) and a verification step (step 7, "Verify the changed seam directly"), but for a batch/diff-wide operation it lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop (what to do if verification fails). It does not fully meet the score-3 feedback-loop anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no external file references and is organized into clear, well-separated sections; per the scoring note, a skill with no need for external references can score 3 on well-organized sections alone. It is not a monolithic wall of text and nothing should be split out.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 clear and specific about its single core action but reads as a what-only statement: it names the domain and the mining action without an explicit trigger clause or broad natural keyword coverage. All dimensions land at the mid level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger, e.g. 'Use when handling PR review feedback or code review comments and you want to apply fixes across the whole diff instead of line by line.'

Include natural trigger-term variations users would actually say: 'PR review', 'code review', 'pull request feedback', 'follow-up review', 'sweep the diff'.

Surface the concrete actions the skill performs (infer the rule, sweep the diff, apply the clear set, draft pushback) so specificity reaches the multi-action score-3 anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("review comments", "diff-wide fixes") and one concrete action ("Mine review comments for broader diff-wide fixes") but does not list multiple specific actions like the score-3 anchor (extract/fill/merge). It is above score 1 because the action is concrete rather than vague.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does ("Mine review comments for broader diff-wide fixes"), but there is no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause; the "instead of handling each line in isolation" contrast only implies when. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"review comments" and "diff-wide fixes" are natural-ish terms, but the description omits common variations a user would actually say ("PR review", "code review", "pull request feedback", "follow-up review"). It clears score 1 yet lacks the broad coverage needed for score 3.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The review-sweep niche is fairly specific and unlikely to conflict with unrelated skills, but without explicit triggers it could still overlap with general code-review skills, matching the score-2 anchor rather than a cleanly distinctive score-3 profile.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

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

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

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.