CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-review

从固定点(commit、branch、tag 或 merge-base)开始,按 Standards(代码是否符合本仓库记录的编码标准?)和 Spec(代码是否符合来源 issue/spec 的要求?)两个轴线审查变更。两个审查会在并行子代理中运行,并并排报告。适用于用户想审查 branch、PR、进行中的变更,或要求“review since X”时。

72

Quality

88%

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

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 well-crafted process skill: fully actionable commands and sub-agent briefs, a clearly sequenced workflow with fail-early validation and missing-spec fallbacks, and disciplined section structure. The only improvements are marginal — trimming known-concept restatement and considering whether the smell baseline belongs in a reference file.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Why two axes' section to one or two lines and drop the parenthetical restatement of the two axes at the top, since the description and Process section already establish them.

Consider moving the 12-smell baseline to a references/ file and having the Standards sub-agent read it, keeping SKILL.md as a shorter overview — or explicitly state that sub-agents cannot reliably read bundle files to further justify the inline placement.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The process text is lean with concrete commands and verbatim sub-agent briefs, and the 12-smell baseline is deliberately inlined so the sub-agent prompt can carry it ("sub-agent 没有其他方式读取它"). It is not a 5 because the smell catalog and the 'Why two axes' section restate material Claude largely knows and could be tightened.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact commands (`git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD`, `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`, `git rev-parse <fixed-point>`), complete quoted sub-agent briefs with word limits, and a concrete fallback order for locating the spec. Not a 4 because no key detail is missing for the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence with explicit validation in step 1 ("确认 fixed point 能解析…并且 diff 非空…应该在这里失败,而不是…后才失败") and error recovery paths (ask the user for a spec, skip the Spec sub-agent and report "no spec available"), plus explicit aggregation rules. This is a read-only review skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) is well-sectioned and self-contained, with the only external pointer being the repo's `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. It is not a 5 because the ~20-line smell baseline is bulk reference material kept inline and the body exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception; it is not a 3 because the structure is clean and the inline choice is explicitly justified.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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: it states concrete capabilities (dual-axis review from a fixed point, parallel sub-agents, side-by-side reporting) and an explicit use-when clause with natural trigger phrases. The only weaknesses are a few missing common trigger synonyms and some overlap risk with generic PR-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "从固定点(commit、branch、tag 或 merge-base)开始…审查变更", both axes defined by concrete compliance questions, and "两个审查会在并行子代理中运行,并并排报告" — covering the skill's behavior comprehensively. It is not a 4 because there are no meaningful gaps in capability coverage for a review skill.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("按 Standards…和 Spec…两个轴线审查变更" with concrete questions per axis) and when ("适用于用户想审查 branch、PR、进行中的变更,或要求'review since X'时") with concrete trigger phrases — a clear match to the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger terms users would say — "branch", "PR", "review since X", plus "commit、branch、tag、merge-base". It is not a 5 because common variations such as "code review", "diff", or "审查代码" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The fixed-point dual-axis framing is a distinct niche with specific triggers, but "审查 branch、PR" overlaps generic PR/code-review skills, leaving minor conflict risk rather than the minimal risk of the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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
vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN
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.