CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

design-testing-strategy

Use before writing any type of tests. Distills 14 industry sources into deterministic decision gates, schemas, and worked test examples.

Quality

72%

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 ./antigravity/skills/design-testing-strategy/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 exceptionally actionable and workflow-clear — deterministic gates, enforced schemas, and complete worked examples leave no ambiguity about what to do — but it pays for that with significant verbosity (re-explained ISTQB basics, duplicated YAML) and a monolithic structure that inlines hundreds of lines of worked examples and source material that belong in bundle files. The main quality lever is splitting and trimming, not adding.

Suggestions

Move the three Worked Examples (A/B/C) and the 14-source list into references/ files (e.g., references/worked-examples.md, references/sources.md) and keep only one condensed example inline, cutting SKILL.md body by roughly half.

Cut explanations of concepts Claude already knows — the definitional prose for Equivalence Partitioning, BVA, decision tables, and state transitions — and keep only the worked examples and the 'combine EP with BVA' style non-obvious guidance.

Remove the duplicated 'Worked YAML Example' section (identical to Example B's YAML) and the trivial 'Gate Application Algorithm' pseudocode.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~758-line body spends substantial tokens on concepts Claude already knows ('Divide input domain into partitions...', 'Bugs cluster at boundaries', basic decision-table and state-transition explanations), duplicates the Example B YAML verbatim in the 'Worked YAML Example' section, and includes a ~10-line Playwright-vs-Cypress comparison plus a trivially obvious gate pseudocode — several padded sections that could be cut without losing guidance. It is above the 1 anchor (the tables are dense and decision-oriented, not conversational filler) but noticeably verbose overall.

2 / 5

Actionability

Every gate is deterministic (ON when / OFF when with explicit conditions), the Test Matrix Schema and Case Listing Schema are copy-paste-ready with enforced field ordering, and three worked examples run end-to-end from artifact through gate walkthrough to YAML output to case list, plus an executable table-driven vitest code sample. This matches the 'fully executable, copy-paste ready, specific examples cover the common cases' anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'How To Use This Skill' section gives a clear 6-step sequence (gates -> skip heuristics -> matrix -> case list -> cross-check), and the closing 'Skill Self-Check' is a 9-item validation checklist with an explicit feedback loop ('If any check fails, revise the strategy before delivering'). This matches the anchor requiring clear sequence, explicit validation steps, and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good and navigation is easy, but the skill is fully monolithic with no bundle files: ~350 lines of worked examples (A/B/C), the 14-source reading list, and the technique tutorials are all inlined in SKILL.md where they clearly belong in separate reference files. This fits 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' rather than 4, since the bulk of the document — not just a few sections — is material that should be split out.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 answers both what and when with correct third-person voice and a clear, non-padded structure, but the 'what' describes the skill's sources rather than its actions and the trigger vocabulary is thin on the test-type terms users naturally say. It is a solid, distinct description with minor gaps rather than a weak one.

Suggestions

Rewrite the 'what' around the concrete action performed, e.g., 'Selects which test types (unit, integration, contract, e2e, property-based, smoke) apply to an artifact via deterministic gates, and outputs a test matrix and case list.'

Add the natural trigger keywords users say — 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'e2e', 'test plan', 'test strategy', 'coverage' — to improve trigger-term coverage.

Keep the 'Use before writing any type of tests' clause but consider naming the moment more specifically, e.g., 'Use when planning tests for a new feature, endpoint, or component before implementation.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (test design) and concrete outputs — 'deterministic decision gates, schemas, and worked test examples' — but these describe the skill's contents rather than the actions it performs (e.g., 'selects test types', 'produces a test matrix'), so it matches the 'domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the fuller list at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: the 'what' ('Distills 14 industry sources into deterministic decision gates, schemas, and worked test examples') and an explicit 'when' ('Use before writing any type of tests'). It falls short of 5 because the 'what' is meta-description of the skill's sources rather than the concrete deliverable action, leaving room to be more explicit.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'tests' and 'worked test examples' are relevant keywords, but the natural variations users say — 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'e2e', 'test plan', 'test strategy', 'coverage' — are absent, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The deterministic-gates/test-strategy-design niche is distinct and the trigger is unambiguous, but 'before writing any type of tests' is broad enough to overlap with closely related testing skills (the body itself references a companion 'test-coverage' skill), fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (759 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

Path

antigravity/skills/design-testing-strategy/SKILL.md

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.