BF code-review
Production-readiness code review at either scope — the uncommitted working tree (default) or a committed branch grouped per `#NNN` task (references/branch-review.md). Hunts DRY violations, dead code, leaky abstractions, missing error handling; auto-detects and runs the project's tests and build; findings categorized `blocking`/`suggestion`/`question`/`nit`/`praise`, and never edits code without permission — report first, ask, then fix. Non-trivial diffs get a lens council: parallel Explore sub-agents (correctness/design/security/tests/production-readiness) plus an adversarial critique round; small diffs skip it. Use this skill whenever the user says "code review", "review my code", "review the diff", "review my PR", "review my branch", "check my uncommitted changes", "is this production ready", "DRY check", or "/code-review" — even if they don't explicitly say "code review skill". Dirty tree → working-tree scope; "branch"/"PR" or clean tree with branch commits → branch scope.
Production-readiness code review at either scope — the uncommitted working tree (default) or a committed branch grouped per NNN task…
As a process F 61/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../conventional-commits/SKILL.md
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6018 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../conventional-commits/SKILL.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../conventional-commits/SKILL.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 26 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6018 tokens
- 100Steps. 138 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 14 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 990: 120–800 characters recommended
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- -224 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 11 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 29 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 138 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.