pr-reviewer

I took a look at your pr-reviewer skill and wanted to share some thoughts.

Links:

• GitHub
• SkillzWave Marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 89/100, solid B-grade territory. This is graded against Anthropic's best practices for Claude Code skills. Your spec compliance is chef's kiss (14/15), but you're losing points on Progressive Disclosure Architecture and a couple of workflow clarity issues that are totally fixable.

What's Working Well

• Solid reference architecture – You've got 4 separate reference files (review criteria, GitHub CLI guide, scenarios, troubleshooting) layered one level deep from the main SKILL.md. That's the right call for keeping things organized.
• Comprehensive trigger coverage – Your triggers are specific ("review pr", "code review", "check pr") and include the GitHub PR URL pattern (github.com/*/pull/*), which means this skill activates exactly when someone needs it.
• Two-stage approval workflow – The /send and /send-decline approach prevents accidental posts to GitHub. That's a real safety feature that matters.
• Clear review criteria checklist – The security/testing/maintainability/performance framework gives reviewers a systematic way to approach PRs instead of ad-hoc feedback.

The Big One: Missing TOC in Large Reference Files

Your references/review_criteria.md is 346 lines without a table of contents. That's a Progressive Disclosure problem – someone loading that file has no way to scan and jump to what they need. This is costing you 1 point.

Quick fix: Add a TOC after the title in references/review_criteria.md and any reference file over 100 lines:

# Code Review Criteria

## Table of Contents
- [Functionality and Correctness](#1-functionality-and-correctness)
- [Readability and Maintainability](#2-readabili...