code-review
Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
85
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
82%
1.17xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
67%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 adequately covers both what the skill does and when to use it, earning full marks for completeness. However, it relies on somewhat abstract language ('technical rigor', 'verification gates') rather than concrete actions, and the trigger terms could be expanded to include more natural user phrasings like 'PR', 'review my code', or 'check my changes'.
Suggestions
Add more concrete actions such as 'analyze diffs', 'check for common issues', 'verify test coverage', or 'enforce coding standards' to improve specificity.
Expand trigger terms to include natural variations like 'PR review', 'review my code', 'check my changes', 'merge request', or 'code feedback'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code review) and mentions some actions like 'receiving feedback', 'requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews', and 'preventing false completion claims', but these are somewhat abstract rather than concrete specific actions like 'analyze diff', 'check for security issues', or 'verify test coverage'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates') and when ('Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'code review', 'feedback', 'pull requests', but missing common variations users might say such as 'PR review', 'review my code', 'check my changes', 'code feedback', or 'merge request'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'code-reviewer subagent' and 'verification gates' provides some distinctiveness, but 'code review' and 'pull requests' are broad terms that could overlap with general git/GitHub skills or other code quality tools. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an exemplary skill file that demonstrates excellent technical writing. It's concise yet comprehensive, provides actionable guidance with concrete commands and patterns, has clear workflow sequences with validation gates, and appropriately structures content with well-signaled references to detailed materials. The decision tree and verification gates protocol are particularly well-designed for preventing common failure modes.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, avoiding explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a purpose with no padding or unnecessary context about what code review is or why it matters. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable bash commands for verification, specific response patterns (READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT), clear do/don't lists with examples, and exact git commands for requesting reviews. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints. The verification gates protocol has a clear gate function (IDENTIFY → RUN → READ → VERIFY → THEN claim), and the decision tree provides unambiguous branching logic for different situations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a clear overview pointing to three well-signaled reference files (code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md). Each section provides enough context to act while deferring full protocols to one-level-deep references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- secondsky/claude-skills
- Commit
90d6bd7
- 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.