CC gitlab-code-review
(no description)
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
AnalyzerGitLabSoftware developmentInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
How to improve
- Add a description to the frontmatter: without it the skill never triggers.
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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- error
description-missingSKILL.md: no `description` — the skill can never trigger - warning
frontmatter-yamlSKILL.md: the frontmatter is not valid YAML (YAML parse error: Implicit keys need to be on a single line at line 3, column 3: description: Performs structured code reviews on GitLab Merge Requests. Use when the user … ^ ); fields were read line by line. The usual cause is a colon inside an unquoted value
Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (gitlab-code-review) differs from the folder (gitlab-code-reviewer)
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 30 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1385 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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 0: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 30 items
- +4Has examples (10 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 33.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
This GitLab review skill is mostly purpose-aligned, but it can post public MR comments without a clear final confirmation and has under-scoped handling of GitLab tokens and temporary review files.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: benign · 28 May 2026