CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

igmarin/rails-agent-skills

Curated library of 42 public AI agent skills for Ruby on Rails development, plus 5 callable workflow skills. Organized by category: planning, testing, code-quality, ddd, engines, infrastructure, api, patterns, context, orchestration, and workflows. Covers code review, architecture, security, testing (RSpec), engines, service objects, DDD patterns, and TDD automation.

75

Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Discovery

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a strong skill description that clearly defines its scope around RSpec testing in Ruby/Rails codebases. It opens with an explicit 'Use when' clause, lists multiple concrete capabilities, and includes abundant natural trigger terms that developers would use. The description is concise yet comprehensive, covering both the what and when effectively.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: spec type selection, factory design, flaky test fixes, shared examples, deterministic assertions, test-driven development discipline, and choosing the best first failing spec. These are all concrete, actionable capabilities.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what (spec type selection, factory design, flaky test fixes, shared examples, deterministic assertions, TDD discipline, choosing first failing spec) and when ('Use when writing, reviewing, or cleaning up RSpec tests for Ruby and Rails codebases' and 'when choosing between model, request, system, and job specs'). Has an explicit 'Use when' clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'RSpec', 'Ruby', 'Rails', 'spec', 'factory', 'flaky test', 'shared examples', 'model spec', 'request spec', 'system spec', 'job spec', 'test-driven development'. These are all terms a developer would naturally use when seeking help with RSpec testing.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: RSpec testing specifically for Ruby/Rails. The specific mention of RSpec, factory design, spec types (model, request, system, job), and Rails-specific testing concerns makes it very unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Implementation

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a strong, actionable RSpec skill with clear workflows, executable examples, and well-structured tables for quick reference. Its main weakness is moderate redundancy — the 'no and in example names' rule appears three times in different sections, and the Output Style checklist partially overlaps with the quick reference table. The progressive disclosure is reasonable but the referenced bundle files (EXAMPLES.md, spec_templates.md) are not provided, making it impossible to verify the full content structure.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'no and in example names' guidance into a single authoritative section and reference it from the quick reference table and Output Style checklist rather than repeating the full explanation three times.

Provide the referenced EXAMPLES.md and assets/spec_templates.md bundle files, or remove the references if they don't exist yet.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Generally efficient with good use of tables and concise rules, but some redundancy exists — the 'no and in example names' rule is stated in the quick reference table, then given its own section with extensive explanation, and then reiterated in the Output Style checklist (rule 8) with another reminder. The Output Style section's 11 rules partially duplicate the quick reference table. Still, most content earns its place.

2 / 3

Actionability

Highly actionable with executable Ruby code examples (service spec anchor pattern, good/bad example splits), specific commands (travel_to, freeze_time), concrete naming conventions, and a copy-paste-ready service spec template. The flaky test table maps causes to specific fixes. The Output Style checklist is precise and verifiable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The TDD workflow is clearly sequenced with 5 explicit steps including a validation checkpoint (step 2: confirm failure message is about missing code, not setup) and a verification step (step 5: run full spec file then suite before committing). The 'choosing the best first failing spec' table provides clear decision guidance. The self-check scan for 'and' in example names is an explicit validation step.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References to EXAMPLES.md and assets/spec_templates.md are clearly signaled and one level deep, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so these references are unverifiable. The main SKILL.md is fairly long (~150 lines of substantive content) and some of the detailed rules in Output Style could potentially be split into a reference file, but the inline content is reasonably organized with clear section headers.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents