code-review
tessl i github:secondsky/claude-skills --skill code-reviewCode 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.
Validation
81%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_trigger_hint | Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...') | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
Total | 13 / 16 Passed | |
Implementation
100%This is an exemplary skill file that demonstrates excellent technical writing. It's concise yet comprehensive, provides actionable guidance with executable commands, has clear workflow sequences with validation gates, and appropriately structures content with well-signaled references to detailed protocols. The 'Iron Law' and 'Red Flags' sections are particularly effective at establishing clear boundaries.
| 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 decision trees, and clear protocols with exact patterns to follow. The verification commands section is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced (READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT), with explicit validation checkpoints ('The Iron Law') and clear feedback loops for error recovery. The decision tree provides unambiguous routing. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a clear overview pointing to three well-signaled reference files (one level deep). Each section provides enough context to act while directing to detailed protocols for full information. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Activation
67%The description adequately covers both what the skill does and when to use it, earning good 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 phrases like 'PR', 'review my code', or 'check my changes'.
Suggestions
Add more concrete actions such as 'analyze diffs', 'check for common issues', 'validate 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 test coverage', or 'validate linting'. | 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 misses 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 'code review' focus provides some distinction, but 'receiving feedback' is generic and could overlap with general coding skills. The 'subagent reviews' and 'verification gates' concepts add some uniqueness but may not be clear differentiators. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
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.