BC code-review
Review code changes for correctness, regressions, and unintended scope. Use when reviewing a pull request, branch, commit, patch, or local diff, including when invoked with /code-review.
The skill instructs an AI to review code for bugs, regressions, and scope creep in PRs and commits. Single instruction file at 663 tokens, no scripts, no critical findings flagged. Scores: quality 80, process 61, safety 100.
Runs on all major platforms: Claude, Cursor, Copilot, DeepSeek, and others. No lint errors, references intact. Quality score suggests it covers basic checks; process score hints at room for tighter workflows. Useful for quick PR screening; deeper analysis of complex changes may fall short.
Review code changes for correctness, regressions, and unintended scope.
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
How to improve
- 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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 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
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 16 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 663 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 186: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 4 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.