go-testing
Go testing patterns for Gentleman.Dots, including Bubbletea TUI testing. Trigger: When writing Go tests, using teatest, or adding test coverage.
76
70%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/go-testing/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
75%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 has good completeness with an explicit trigger clause and is highly distinctive due to its project-specific and technology-specific focus. However, it lacks concrete action verbs describing what the skill actually teaches Claude to do, and could benefit from additional natural trigger terms users might use when seeking help with Go testing.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill enables, e.g., 'Write table-driven tests, create teatest golden file tests, mock TUI components, and set up test helpers for Bubbletea models.'
Expand trigger terms to include common variations: 'unit tests', '_test.go', 'go test', 'Bubble Tea testing', 'golden files', 'test assertions'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Go testing, Bubbletea TUI testing) and mentions 'teatest' as a specific tool, but doesn't list concrete actions like 'write table-driven tests', 'mock dependencies', or 'assert TUI output'. It describes the topic area rather than specific capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both 'what' (Go testing patterns for Gentleman.Dots including Bubbletea TUI testing) and 'when' (with a clear 'Trigger:' clause specifying when writing Go tests, using teatest, or adding test coverage). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords like 'Go tests', 'teatest', and 'test coverage', but misses common variations users might say such as 'unit tests', 'testing Go code', 'Bubble Tea', 'TUI tests', '_test.go', or 'go test'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of Go testing, Gentleman.Dots project specificity, Bubbletea TUI testing, and teatest creates a very distinct niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides solid, actionable Go testing patterns with executable code examples and a useful decision tree. Its main weakness is verbosity—the Code Examples section largely restates patterns already demonstrated in Critical Patterns with minor variations, and some patterns (basic table-driven tests) are standard Go knowledge Claude already possesses. Tightening the content by removing redundant examples and consolidating would significantly improve token efficiency.
Suggestions
Consolidate 'Critical Patterns' and 'Code Examples' sections—the code examples are variations of the same patterns and could be reduced to one strong example per pattern type.
Remove or significantly shorten Pattern 1 (table-driven tests) since this is a fundamental Go pattern Claude already knows; focus token budget on the project-specific Bubbletea and teatest patterns.
Add a brief note about declaring the `-update` flag variable for golden file testing (e.g., `var update = flag.Bool("update", false, "update golden files")`) since this is a critical missing detail.
Add a validation step or note about verifying golden file diffs before committing updates to prevent accidental acceptance of broken output.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy—Pattern 1 (table-driven tests) and Pattern 2 (basic model testing) are standard Go patterns Claude already knows well. The 'Code Examples' section largely repeats the same patterns shown in 'Critical Patterns' with only slightly different contexts, inflating the token count without proportional value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | All code examples are fully executable Go test code with concrete types, assertions, and realistic scenarios. The commands section provides copy-paste ready bash commands. The decision tree gives specific, actionable guidance for choosing test approaches. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The decision tree provides good guidance for choosing test types, and the commands section shows how to run tests. However, there's no explicit workflow for the golden file update cycle (when to update vs. when a mismatch is a real bug), and no validation checkpoints for the overall test-writing process. The golden file pattern uses a bare `*update` flag without explaining its declaration. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The Resources section at the end provides clear one-level-deep references to test files and external docs. However, the main body is quite long (~250 lines) with repetitive examples that could be split into separate reference files. The Critical Patterns and Code Examples sections overlap significantly and would benefit from consolidation or separation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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
- Gentleman-Programming/agent-teams-lite
- Commit
6901875
- 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.