test-codebase

Run or inspect the relevant validation paths and turn failures, regressions, or missing coverage into findings. Accept optional `path` and `depth` parameters and default to `path=infer`, `depth=deep`. Confirm effective variables before starting.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/test-codebase/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a lean, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clear sequenced workflow and one-level-deep references, but it lacks concrete executable examples and its shared reference files do not resolve. Strengthening actionability and verifying references would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example repro command and a minimal example finding entry so the workflow is executable, not just procedural.

Verify or fix the referenced shared paths (../shared/references/findings.schema.md and findings.lifecycle.md) since they currently do not exist.

Trim the restated defaults in the Depth and Path Input sections, which already appear in the frontmatter description.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but defaults stated in the frontmatter are restated in the Depth/Path Input sections and 'Confirm effective variables' repeats, leaving minor trims — below the lean 5 anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance names concrete targets (path/findings.md, triage-findings, resolve-findings, existing tests, repro steps) but stays procedural with no executable commands or example repro/finding, so key execution details are missing.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Six steps are clearly sequenced with a checkpoint ('If execution is blocked, record the blocker and its impact explicitly'), but there is no validate→fix→retry feedback loop, keeping it below 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well organized and two references are signaled one level deep ('Read these shared references when needed'), but those referenced paths (../shared/references/*.md) do not exist, a minor navigation gap below 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

58%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 states a clear purpose and enumerates concrete failure types but lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause, capping completeness and leaving trigger coverage partial. It is mostly distinct from sibling skills but would benefit from natural user-facing trigger phrases.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to run or check tests, hunt for regressions, or verify coverage').

Replace jargon like 'validation paths' with natural terms users would say, such as 'tests', 'test suite', or 'repro steps'.

Mirror the enumerated failure types (failures, regressions, missing coverage) in the trigger clause so the 'when' is as concrete as the 'what'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('Run or inspect the relevant validation paths', 'turn failures, regressions, or missing coverage into findings') with enumerated failure types, though 'validation paths' stays somewhat generic — minor gaps keep it just below 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant keywords exist (failures, regressions, missing coverage, findings) but 'validation paths' is jargon and common natural phrases like 'run tests' or 'test suite' are missing, so coverage is partial rather than comprehensive.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The validation-to-findings niche is mostly distinct from generic skills, with only minor overlap risk against closely related testing/review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: Agenta-AI/agenta
Path: .agents/skills/test-codebase/SKILL.md
Commit: 7a975fb

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.