putio/frontend-test-harness
Design typed frontend test harnesses, e2e checks, test automation, and QA proof loops for put.io web, extension, TV, native, emulator, simulator, and device surfaces.
72
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
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, well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its scope, triggers, and boundaries. It lists concrete actions and surfaces, includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms, and even specifies what to skip, reducing conflict risk. The only minor weakness is the density of terms which borders on jargon-heavy, but all terms are natural to the testing/QA domain.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: designing test harnesses, testing flows, end-to-end tests, test automation, test coverage, QA proof loops, and specifies concrete surfaces (web, browser extension, TV, native, emulator, simulator, device). Also mentions specific artifacts like screenshots, logs, proof artifacts. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (design typed, agent-friendly test harnesses, testing flows, e2e tests, etc. for put.io frontend surfaces) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause covering auth/session setup, deep links, product flows, platform input, runtime assertions, screenshots, logs, proof artifacts). Also includes a 'Skip' clause for exclusion boundaries. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'test harnesses', 'end-to-end tests', 'test automation', 'test coverage', 'QA', 'browser extension', 'emulator', 'simulator', 'auth/session setup', 'deep links', 'screenshots', 'logs'. These are terms developers naturally use when discussing testing. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive: scoped specifically to put.io frontend-owned surfaces, explicitly names the platform types (TV, native, browser extension), and carves out exclusions ('Skip repo delivery and release shape'). This is unlikely to conflict with general testing skills or deployment 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, domain-specific skill that provides highly actionable guidance with concrete typed interfaces, CLI examples, and a clear multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are the missing bundle reference files (which undermines progressive disclosure) and some redundancy between the workflow steps, output shape, and guardrails sections. The guardrails section is thorough and well-suited for the security-sensitive auth/secrets domain.
Suggestions
Provide the referenced bundle files (harness-pattern.md, platform-notes.md, examples.md) to support the progressive disclosure structure already outlined in step 1.
Consolidate the output shape section with the layer checklist in step 3 to reduce redundancy—consider moving the detailed output shape to a reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy—e.g., the 10-item layer checklist in step 3 is repeated as the output shape section, and some guardrails overlap with workflow steps (auth guidance appears in both). However, it largely avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and stays domain-specific. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete CLI command examples, a typed TypeScript interface with specific types, explicit account names and profile conventions, and specific tool references (Infisical, putio-cli). The mini-example command surface and TypeScript shape are copy-paste ready and directly usable for implementation. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 9-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: step 8 requires checking all layers before implementation, step 9 requires running smoke tests, inspecting artifacts, fixing root causes, and rerunning. This constitutes a proper feedback loop for error recovery. Auth setup has a clear primary path with explicit fallback ordering. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to ./references/harness-pattern.md, ./references/platform-notes.md, and ./references/examples.md are well-signaled and one level deep, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, meaning these references are broken/unresolvable. The main content is also fairly long and some sections (like the full output shape checklist) could potentially be in a reference file. | 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.
Reviewed
Table of Contents