CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

fix-local-tests

Fix failing tests by prioritising shell implementation fixes to match bash behaviour

58

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/fix-local-tests/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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 content is a tight, highly actionable workflow with executable commands, classification tables, and validation/feedback loops. Its main flaw is a duplicate '### 7.' step heading that breaks the otherwise clean sequence.

Suggestions

Fix the duplicate step numbering: the second '### 7. Run bash comparison tests' should be '### 8.' (or merged into step 7).

Consider tightening the opening security block into a shorter callout while preserving the untrusted-data guidance.

The reference to resources/gnu-coreutils-tests/ could note when to consult it versus Method B/C more crisply, but otherwise the structure is solid.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and command-driven without explaining concepts Claude already knows; the only padding is the somewhat lengthy security block, which is justified but could be trimmed slightly, matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides copy-paste-ready executable commands throughout (go test invocations, docker run, bash -c, fuzz corpus format) covering the common cases, matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and a feedback loop ('If new failures appear, repeat from step 1'), but the duplicate '### 7.' numbering is a real sequencing flaw preventing a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and is organized into clear headed sections; it is well-structured but the duplicate step number and inline length keep it just below the ideal one-level, easy-navigation anchor.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 is specific and distinct, clearly stating what the skill does, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and broader keyword coverage. Adding natural trigger phrasing and a use-when clause would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when tests fail against the rshell interpreter and bash behaviour needs to be matched.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms such as 'test failures', 'broken tests', and 'rshell/bash comparison'.

Optionally enumerate a second concrete action (e.g. 'fix test expectations and YAML scenarios') to move specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('failing tests', 'shell implementation', 'bash behaviour') and one concrete prioritized action, but does not enumerate several specific actions, matching the '1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does ('Fix failing tests by prioritising shell implementation fixes to match bash behaviour') but has no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the guidelines completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes a natural phrase ('failing tests', 'bash behaviour') a user might say, but lacks synonyms and common variations (e.g. 'test failures', 'broken tests'), placing it at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'shell implementation fixes to match bash behaviour' framing carves a distinct niche with minimal conflict risk, though 'fix failing tests' alone overlaps slightly with generic test-repair skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
DataDog/rshell
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.