CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

98

1.06x
Quality

100%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.06x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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

The body is well-structured, actionable, and concise, with clearly sequenced verification-gated workflows and properly signaled one-level-deep references. It avoids teaching basic concepts and rewards Claude's competence.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — bullet triggers, a decision tree, and command examples with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; it assumes competence and avoids padding, though the "Bottom Line" recap lightly re-states earlier content.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable commands (git rev-parse, bun test/build/lint/typecheck), concrete subagent dispatch fields, and a copy-paste-ready verification command block rather than vague direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step protocols are explicitly sequenced (READ→UNDERSTAND→VERIFY→EVALUATE→RESPOND→IMPLEMENT and IDENTIFY→RUN→READ→VERIFY→THEN claim) with validation checkpoints and explicit failure framing ("Skip any step = lying").

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md acts as an overview with three real, one-level-deep reference files clearly signaled via "Reference:" and "Full protocol:" markers; navigation is easy and content is appropriately split.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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, third-person, and clearly answers both what the skill does and when to use it with explicit triggers. It is concise without fluff and unlikely to conflict with unrelated skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names three concrete practices — "receiving feedback," "requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews," and "preventing false completion claims" — matching the anchor for listing multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states what the skill does ("Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates") and when to use it via an explicit "Use for..." trigger clause, answering both what and when.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would say such as "receiving feedback," "code-reviewer subagent reviews," and "pull requests," giving good coverage of real-world trigger terms.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clearly scoped to review/verification workflows with subagent dispatch and PR completion gates, with triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
secondsky/claude-skills
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.