web3-testing
Test smart contracts comprehensively using Hardhat and Foundry with unit tests, integration tests, and mainnet forking. Use when testing Solidity contracts, setting up blockchain test suites, or validating DeFi protocols.
78
68%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.34xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./tests/ext_conformance/artifacts/agents-wshobson/blockchain-web3/skills/web3-testing/SKILL.mdQuality
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 skill description that clearly identifies its domain (smart contract testing), names specific tools and techniques, and provides explicit trigger guidance. It covers natural user terms well and occupies a distinct niche that minimizes conflict with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Test smart contracts comprehensively using Hardhat and Foundry with unit tests, integration tests, and mainnet forking.' This names specific tools (Hardhat, Foundry), test types (unit, integration), and techniques (mainnet forking). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (test smart contracts using Hardhat and Foundry with unit tests, integration tests, and mainnet forking) and 'when' (Use when testing Solidity contracts, setting up blockchain test suites, or validating DeFi protocols) with an explicit 'Use when...' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'smart contracts', 'Hardhat', 'Foundry', 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'mainnet forking', 'Solidity contracts', 'blockchain test suites', 'DeFi protocols'. These cover a good range of terms a developer would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche targeting smart contract testing specifically with named frameworks (Hardhat, Foundry) and blockchain-specific concepts (mainnet forking, DeFi protocols). Unlikely to conflict with general testing or other development skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a comprehensive but bloated reference document rather than a focused, actionable skill. It provides excellent executable code examples across Hardhat and Foundry, but fails to organize them into a clear workflow with validation steps. The content would benefit greatly from being trimmed to essential patterns and pushing detailed examples into referenced files.
Suggestions
Restructure as a sequential workflow: 1) Set up test environment → 2) Write unit tests → 3) Run and validate coverage → 4) Add advanced patterns (forking, fuzzing) → 5) CI integration, with explicit validation checkpoints at each step.
Move the bulk of code examples (full config files, CI/CD YAML, gas optimization comparisons) into the referenced files and keep only minimal representative snippets in the main skill.
Remove the 'When to Use This Skill' bullet list and the generic 'Best Practices' list — these are obvious to Claude and waste tokens.
Add validation/verification steps such as 'Run `npx hardhat test` and confirm all pass before proceeding to coverage' and 'If coverage < 90%, identify untested branches before deployment.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~300+ lines, with extensive boilerplate code that Claude already knows how to write. It explains basic testing patterns (unit tests, fixtures, event checking) that are well-known, includes a full hardhat.config.js, a full CI/CD workflow, and generic best practices list. Much of this is standard knowledge that doesn't need to be in a skill file. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code examples are concrete, executable, and copy-paste ready. Both Hardhat (JavaScript) and Foundry (Solidity) examples include complete test files with proper imports, setup functions, and assertions. Commands like `npx hardhat coverage` and verification CLI are specific and actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no clear sequential workflow or process to follow. The skill presents a collection of code snippets and patterns without sequencing them into a coherent testing workflow. There are no validation checkpoints, no 'do this then verify that' steps, and no error recovery guidance. For a skill involving contract deployment and testing (potentially destructive operations), this is a significant gap. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files in a Resources section (references/hardhat-setup.md, etc.), which is good structure. However, the main file itself is monolithic with too much inline content that should be in those referenced files. The 'When to Use' and 'Best Practices' sections add bulk without adding value proportional to their length. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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.
- Repository
- Dicklesworthstone/pi_agent_rust
- Commit
47823e3
- 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.