CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

uinaf/review-gang

Review existing code, diffs, branches, or pull requests with a risk-scaled set of concern-specific reviewer subagents, then synthesize a ship-it / needs-review / blocked verdict.

93

1.18x
Quality

95%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

91%

1.18x

Average score across 4 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

92%

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

The body is lean, actionable, and clearly sequenced with explicit verification checkpoints. Its one structural weakness is progressive disclosure: the SKILL.md points to references/ files that are not present in the bundle, leaving the reader unable to actually load the persona or reviewing details it depends on.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced bundle files (references/reviewer-selection.md, references/reviewing.md, and references/reviewers/<persona>.md) so the documented load steps can actually be executed.

If the persona files are intentionally absent, inline the minimum persona-selection criteria needed to spawn reviewers instead of pointing at a missing file.

Verify each in-body link resolves to a real file under the skill package; dangling references undermine both navigation and actionability of the load step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and operational — it does not explain concepts Claude already knows (no "what is a PR/diff"), and every section (Contract, Before You Start, Workflow, Output) carries concrete guidance rather than padding, matching the top anchor for assuming Claude's competence.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready material: concrete commands ("git diff --stat <base>...HEAD", "pnpm test path/to/spec"), a fill-in subagent prompt template, and a concrete output example, satisfying the top anchor for fully executable guidance.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced workflow (5 prep steps, 4 numbered phases) with explicit verification emphasis — "Run the smallest runtime check that changes the verdict", "Treat stale CI... as unverified until refreshed", and "Block when missing context or proof prevents an honest verdict" — giving validation checkpoints and an unverified-to-verdict feedback loop.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References are well-signaled and one-level-deep (references/reviewer-selection.md, references/reviewing.md, references/reviewers/<persona>.md), but the referenced bundle files and directories do not exist, so the split is aspirational rather than real; scoring against the actual (empty) bundle structure pulls this below the top anchor.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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, uses natural trigger terms, explicitly answers both what and when, and carves out a distinct niche with a negative trigger to avoid overlap. Voice is third person throughout, so no specificity penalty applies.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "Review an existing diff, branch, pull request, or codebase with at least two independent reviewer subagents", "scale the reviewer set to the risk", "synthesize their evidence into a ship decision", and "Produces a ship it / needs review / blocked verdict" — matching the top anchor for multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (multi-reviewer audit synthesizing a ship decision) and when ("Use when the user asks to review this PR, check this diff independently...") with explicit trigger guidance, plus a negative trigger ("Do not use to self-check a change you just authored").

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural user phrasings such as "review this PR", "check this diff independently", "decide whether someone else's change is safe to merge", "triage PR risk", and "follow up after runtime proof", giving good coverage of terms a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (multi-reviewer subagent synthesis producing a ship verdict) with distinct triggers and an explicit de-confliction clause excluding self-checks, making it unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 5 missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 12 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents