product-factory/testing
Apply this skill when writing, reviewing, or planning tests for a Next.js + TypeScript + Drizzle application using Vitest, React Testing Library, MSW, and Playwright. Triggers on requests like "write tests for", "add test coverage", "test this component", "test this hook", "test this API route", "add E2E tests", "is this testable", or any time you are building features that need verification. Use proactively — all new features should include tests.
87
Quality
87%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Discovery
89%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 with excellent trigger term coverage and completeness. The explicit 'Triggers on' clause with natural user phrases and the specific tech stack (Next.js + TypeScript + Drizzle) make it highly distinguishable. The main weakness is that it describes the testing context well but doesn't enumerate specific concrete actions the skill can perform.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions like 'mock API responses with MSW', 'test React component rendering and interactions', 'write database integration tests', or 'generate Playwright E2E scenarios' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Next.js + TypeScript + Drizzle testing) and mentions specific tools (Vitest, React Testing Library, MSW, Playwright), but doesn't list concrete actions beyond generic 'writing, reviewing, or planning tests'. Lacks specific capabilities like 'mock API responses', 'test component rendering', or 'validate database queries'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (testing for Next.js + TypeScript + Drizzle with specific tools) and when (explicit 'Triggers on requests like...' clause with multiple examples, plus proactive guidance for new features). The 'Apply this skill when' and 'Triggers on' phrases provide explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'write tests for', 'add test coverage', 'test this component', 'test this hook', 'test this API route', 'add E2E tests', 'is this testable'. These are realistic phrases developers use when requesting testing help. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche: specifically targets Next.js + TypeScript + Drizzle stack with named testing tools. The combination of framework, ORM, and testing libraries creates a unique fingerprint unlikely to conflict with generic testing skills or other framework-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
79%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 testing skill with excellent code examples and efficient use of tokens. The testing pyramid and priority tables provide good mental models. Main weaknesses are the monolithic structure (could benefit from splitting into focused reference files) and lack of explicit test-run-fix feedback loops.
Suggestions
Add a brief workflow section at the top: 'Run tests → Check coverage → Fix failures → Commit' with specific commands (e.g., `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:coverage`)
Consider splitting MSW setup, E2E patterns, and accessibility testing into separate linked files to improve progressive disclosure
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, using tables for quick reference and code examples without unnecessary explanation. It assumes Claude knows what Vitest, RTL, and Playwright are without explaining them. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Every section provides fully executable, copy-paste ready code examples. The MSW setup, component tests, and E2E examples are complete and immediately usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The testing pyramid provides good structure and the priority table is helpful, but there's no explicit validation/verification workflow for the testing process itself—no 'run tests, check coverage, fix failures' feedback loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and tables, but it's a long monolithic file (~200 lines). The MSW setup, E2E patterns, and accessibility testing could be split into separate reference files with links from the main skill. | 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i product-factory/testing@0.1.0Reviewed
Table of Contents