requesting-code-review
tessl install github:obra/superpowers --skill requesting-code-reviewUse when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Review Score
71%
Validation Score
13/16
Implementation Score
100%
Activation Score
15%
Generated
Validation
Total
13/16Score
Passed| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary |
license_field | 'license' field is missing |
body_steps | No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow |
Implementation
Score
100%Overall Assessment
This is a well-crafted skill that efficiently teaches when and how to request code reviews. It provides concrete commands, clear workflows with validation checkpoints, and a practical example. The content respects Claude's intelligence while providing all necessary specifics for execution.
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | 3/3 | Content is lean and efficient, using bullet points and code examples without explaining concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a clear purpose with no padding or unnecessary context. |
Actionability | 3/3 | Provides concrete bash commands for getting SHAs, specific placeholder names to fill, clear categorization of issue severity with exact actions to take, and a complete worked example showing the full workflow. |
Workflow Clarity | 3/3 | Clear 3-step sequence (get SHAs → dispatch subagent → act on feedback) with explicit validation through the review process itself. Includes feedback loop guidance (fix Critical immediately, fix Important before proceeding) and integration points with different workflows. |
Progressive Disclosure | 3/3 | Well-organized sections from 'when' to 'how' to 'example' to 'integration'. References external template file appropriately at the end without nesting. Content is appropriately sized for a SKILL.md overview. |
Activation
Suggestions 3
Score
15%Overall Assessment
This description fails to explain what the skill actually does, focusing only on vague trigger conditions. The lack of concrete actions and overly generic language makes it nearly impossible to distinguish from other skills and provides no useful information for skill selection.
Suggestions
- Add specific concrete actions describing what this skill does (e.g., 'Runs test suites, validates code coverage, checks linting rules' or 'Creates verification checklists, runs automated checks')
- Replace vague phrases like 'completing tasks' and 'implementing major features' with specific scenarios (e.g., 'Use when running pre-merge checks, validating pull requests, or verifying feature completion against acceptance criteria')
- Include domain-specific trigger terms users would naturally say (e.g., 'PR review', 'code review', 'QA check', 'acceptance testing', 'definition of done')
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | 1/3 | The description uses vague language like 'completing tasks' and 'implementing major features' without specifying any concrete actions. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does, only when to use it. |
Completeness | 1/3 | The description only addresses 'when' to use the skill but completely omits 'what' the skill does. There's no explanation of the actual capabilities or actions performed. |
Trigger Term Quality | 2/3 | Contains some relevant keywords like 'merging', 'verify', and 'requirements' that users might naturally say, but lacks specific technical terms or common variations that would help distinguish this skill. |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 1/3 | Extremely generic phrases like 'completing tasks' and 'implementing major features' could apply to virtually any development-related skill, creating high conflict risk with other skills. |