CD code-review
Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs (plus reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups where the model's review recipe covers them) at the given effort level (low|medium|high|xhigh|max: from few high-confidence findings up to many, some of them uncertain; ultra: deep multi-agent review in the cloud); with no level given, it reuses the level you typed last. Pass --comment to post findings as inline PR comments, or --fix to apply the findings to the working tree after the review. Pass --max-findings <n> to report up to n findings, or --max-findings all for every finding. The choice stays until you pass --max-findings default. For ultra on a GitHub.com PR target, --post asks to post the finished review’s findings to the PR as a single comment from the user’s GitHub account (not a review; the launch dialog still confirms in interactive sessions, while non-interactive mode posts on the flag alone) and --no-post hides that option.
Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs (plus reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups where the model's review…
As a process D 40/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: steps, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 40/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1405 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
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 979: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.