SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CB code-review

Architectural code review — coding standards, SOLID, testability, performance concerns.

Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios Claude Code author: Donchitos MIT 1 file body ≈ 3 354 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 27 h ago

Architectural code review — coding standards, SOLID, testability, performance concerns.

As a process B 77/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers

AnalyzerSoftware developmentSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
C
87/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
69
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
77/100
Nearly there
When it triggers w 12
20
Result and completion w 14
40
Failures and branches w 10
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
For the model run — optional
  • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
  • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

Guard findings · 1

✓ No critical or high findings

Medium and low: 1
  • low Broad scope meta-dynamic-shell SKILL.md:10
    Shell command executed automatically when the skill loads (Claude Code !`cmd` preamble)
    !`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation`

Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 58): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 77/100

  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
  • 100Steps. 61 steps
  • 100Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3354 tokens
  • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
  • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
  • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
  • low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

Quality signals

  • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +3Description length 87: 120–800 characters recommended
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +4Structure: 13 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 61 items
  • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.