CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

test-evidence-review

Quality review of test files and manual evidence documents. Goes beyond existence checks — evaluates assertion coverage, edge case handling, naming conventions, and evidence completeness. Produces ADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE/MISSING verdict per story. Run before QA sign-off or on demand.

73

Quality

92%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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

A well-structured, highly actionable read/evaluate workflow with concrete heuristics, clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, and a complete output template. It is token-efficient and assumes Claude's competence throughout.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient: a single orienting paragraph then concrete thresholds, heuristics, and a report template — every section earns its place and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 3

Actionability

Fully actionable guidance: exact Glob paths, specific Grep terms ('zero', 'max', 'null', 'empty'), numeric assertion thresholds, a naming pattern, and a copy-paste report template with N/M placeholders.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear 7-phase sequence (Parse → Load → Locate → Review automated → Review manual → Build report → Write) with an explicit verdict-assignment checkpoint and a BLOCKING/ADVISORY decision rule; the task is non-destructive so the destructive-feedback-loop cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the single SKILL.md is well-organized into clearly headed sections with no 2+-level nested references, satisfying the simple/well-organized-skill allowance.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, specific third-person description that covers what the skill does and when to run it, with low conflict risk. Its main weakness is trigger-term naturalness — it states capabilities well but does not mirror the plain phrasing a user would say when they need it.

Suggestions

Add natural user-facing trigger phrasing, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to review test quality, audit evidence, or check whether tests are good enough before QA sign-off.'

Surface common user phrasings ('are my tests thorough enough', 'review evidence for this story') alongside the existing domain terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — 'evaluates assertion coverage, edge case handling, naming conventions, and evidence completeness' and 'Produces ADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE/MISSING verdict per story' — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor; written in correct third-person voice.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers what (quality review across named axes) and provides an explicit when clause ('Run before QA sign-off or on demand'), so it is not capped at 2 despite 'on demand' being somewhat weak.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant terms ('test files', 'manual evidence', 'QA sign-off') but lacks the natural phrasings a user would actually say ('review my tests', 'are my tests good enough'), and 'evidence documents' is domain jargon missing common variations.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The test/evidence *quality* review niche and its ADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE/MISSING verdict terminology are distinctive and unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
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.