jbvc/tdd-orchestrator
Master TDD orchestrator specializing in red-green-refactor discipline, multi-agent workflow coordination, and comprehensive test-driven development practices. Enforces TDD best practices across teams with AI-assisted testing and modern frameworks. Use PROACTIVELY for TDD implementation and governance.
38
38%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
40%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description relies heavily on buzzwords and abstract language ('master orchestrator', 'governance', 'multi-agent workflow coordination') without specifying concrete actions Claude would perform. While it identifies the TDD domain, it lacks the specificity and clear trigger conditions needed for reliable skill selection. The first-person-adjacent 'Master TDD orchestrator' framing and vague 'Use PROACTIVELY' guidance weaken its utility.
Suggestions
Replace abstract language with concrete actions, e.g., 'Writes failing tests first, implements minimal code to pass, then refactors. Generates test stubs, validates test coverage, and enforces red-green-refactor cycles.'
Add explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when the user asks to write tests before code, mentions TDD, red-green-refactor, test-first development, or wants to add unit/integration tests following TDD methodology.'
Remove buzzwords like 'master orchestrator', 'governance', and 'multi-agent workflow coordination' that add no selection value and increase conflict risk with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, buzzword-heavy language like 'master TDD orchestrator', 'multi-agent workflow coordination', and 'governance' without listing concrete actions. No specific operations like 'write failing tests', 'generate test stubs', or 'refactor code while maintaining green tests' are mentioned. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is present but vague (TDD orchestration, enforcement). There is a 'Use PROACTIVELY' clause but it's extremely generic ('for TDD implementation and governance') and doesn't provide explicit trigger conditions or user scenarios that would help Claude know when to select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'TDD', 'red-green-refactor', 'test-driven development', and 'testing' that users might naturally use. However, it misses common variations like 'unit tests', 'test first', 'write tests', 'test coverage', or specific framework names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While TDD is a somewhat specific domain, the broad language about 'multi-agent workflow coordination', 'teams', and 'governance' could overlap with project management or CI/CD skills. The description doesn't carve out a clear enough niche to avoid conflicts with general testing or code quality skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
7%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads as a persona description or capability catalog rather than actionable instructions. It is overwhelmingly verbose, listing dozens of abstract capabilities, behavioral traits, and knowledge areas without providing any concrete code, commands, or step-by-step workflows. The content fails to leverage Claude's existing knowledge and wastes significant token budget on descriptions Claude doesn't need.
Suggestions
Replace the extensive capability lists with 2-3 concrete, executable TDD workflow examples (e.g., a complete red-green-refactor cycle with actual code in a specific language)
Add explicit step-by-step workflows with validation checkpoints, such as: write failing test → verify it fails → implement minimal code → verify test passes → refactor → verify tests still pass
Move the detailed capability categories, knowledge base, and behavioral traits into a separate reference file and keep only actionable instructions in the main skill
Remove the 'Expert Purpose', 'Capabilities', 'Behavioral Traits', 'Knowledge Base', and 'Example Interactions' sections entirely — these describe a persona rather than providing instructions Claude can act on
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and padded with extensive lists of capabilities, behavioral traits, knowledge bases, and example interactions that Claude already knows. The content reads like a resume or marketing document rather than actionable instructions. Most of the 200+ lines describe what the skill *is* rather than what to *do*. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code examples, no executable commands, no specific workflows. The entire skill is abstract descriptions ('Complete red-green-refactor cycle orchestration and enforcement') with zero copy-paste-ready guidance. The 'Response Approach' section lists vague steps like 'Assess TDD readiness' without explaining how. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Response Approach' provides 8 high-level steps but they are vague and lack any validation checkpoints, error recovery, or concrete sequencing. For a skill involving multi-step TDD processes and destructive operations like refactoring, there are no feedback loops or verification steps whatsoever. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is one reference to an external file ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') which is good, but the main content is a monolithic wall of bullet-pointed lists that should be split into separate reference files. The massive capability lists inline severely hurt organization. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents