CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

receive-review

处理 reviewer 反馈:Red→Green 修复 + 按 engagement mode 收口。Use when: 收到 review 结果或 P1/P2。Not for: 发 review 请求、自检。Output: 按 iterative / one-shot 契约闭环。

64

Quality

78%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./cat-cafe-skills/receive-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced process skill with explicit gates, feedback loops, and checklists. Its main weaknesses are verbosity from anecdotes and cross-section repetition, and a monolithic structure with external/uncertain references rather than a clean progressive-disclosure layout.

Suggestions

Tighten conciseness by collapsing the duplicated ≥3-round escalation rule and cloud re-trigger guidance into single authoritative locations, and trimming narrative anecdotes to one-line lesson anchors.

Move the detailed reviewer-reentry carrier protocol and the F253 delta-annotation spec into a one-level-deep reference file with clearly signaled links from SKILL.md, replacing the hedged "refs/ 如有需要" pointer.

Flesh out the structured carrier instructions with a concrete payload example so the reentry actionability gap is closed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~290-line body is mostly efficient with dense tables and decision rules, but includes narrative anecdotes ("别一个人打到 R20(PR #2202...)") and repetition of rules across sections (the ≥3-round escalation and cloud re-trigger rules each appear twice), which could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance — a copy-paste confirmation-letter template, named CLI tools (cat_cafe_create_task/update_task), a specific script invocation (node scripts/check-fallback-layers.mjs), and exact paths — but the structured reviewer-reentry carrier instructions (coordination.phase=active, reviewReentry, clientMessageId) remain somewhat abstract with minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence (READ→CLOSE) with explicit validation checkpoints (VERIFY three gates, AUDIT failure-mode sweep), feedback loops (validate→fix→retry, "先 audit 再修"), and checklists (UX verification, Common Mistakes), matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure with headers and tables is reasonable, but the file is essentially monolithic at ~290 lines with no bundle files present; references point to external/non-bundled paths (../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/pr-signals.md, scripts/check-fallback-layers.mjs) and one is hedged ("refs/ 如有需要"), so references are present but not clearly signaled as a one-level-deep system.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 is well-structured with explicit what/when/not-for/output clauses and a clear niche distinct from sibling review skills. It is specific and actionable, with only minor gaps in trigger-term breadth.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (review feedback handling) and several concrete actions — "Red→Green 修复", "按 engagement mode 收口", "按 iterative / one-shot 契约闭环" — with only minor coverage gaps, matching the anchor listing several specific actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ("处理 reviewer 反馈:Red→Green 修复 + 按 engagement mode 收口"), when ("Use when: 收到 review 结果或 P1/P2"), boundaries ("Not for:"), and output ("Output:"), matching the anchor that clearly answers both what AND when with concrete triggers.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when: 收到 review 结果或 P1/P2" clause plus the frontmatter triggers (review 结果, review 意见, reviewer 说, fix these, github-review-feedback) give good natural-term coverage including synonyms, though a few common phrasings are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (handling reviewer feedback after receipt) with an explicit "Not for: 发 review 请求、自检" boundary that disambiguates it from sibling skills like request-review and quality-gate, yielding minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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
zts212653/clowder-ai
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.