CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

fix-tests

Systematically fix all failing tests after business logic changes or refactoring

51

Quality

56%

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 ./plugins/tdd/skills/fix-tests/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

60%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 skill body is a well-structured, concise orchestration workflow with a clear feedback loop and a reusable agent template. Its main weakness is actionability — concrete commands and exact per-agent invocation syntax are abstracted away behind placeholders, and a couple of validation checkpoints are described as goals rather than explicit checks.

Suggestions

Add concrete executable commands for the baseline run and the verify step (e.g. an example `npm test` / `pytest -q` invocation) instead of generic 'run full test suite'.

Make step 5's single-test verification explicit with a concrete instruction for the haiku agent and a clear pass/fail checkpoint.

Replace the placeholders in the agent template with a small filled-in example so the guidance is copy-paste ready.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean with bulleted steps and a template, and largely assumes Claude's competence; minor padding like the repeated Context/Resources/Guidance lists and slightly verbose prose could be trimmed, so it sits noticeably above the midpoint but not at 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides a concrete agent-launch template with placeholders ({FILE_PATH}, {TEST_COMMAND}) and a clear 8-step plan, but actual executable commands are absent (only 'run full test suite', 'run this specific test file') and the per-agent instructions are pseudo-templated rather than copy-paste ready.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly sequenced (Preparation → Analysis → Test Fixing → Verify → Iterate) with an explicit feedback loop (step 8 returns to step 5), but the single-test-execution verification in step 5 is under-specified and checkpoint details are implicit; it scores 3 rather than 4 because several checkpoints are stated as goals rather than explicit validation commands.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections (User Arguments, Context, Goal, Constraints, Workflow Steps, Success Criteria, Template) with no bundle files present and no over-nesting; the only gap is that the agent-instructions template is inlined rather than referenced, but for a ~100-line skill this is appropriate.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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 clearly states what the skill does but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and natural-synonym coverage, which limits completeness and trigger term quality. It is reasonably distinct from neighboring skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when tests fail after refactoring, dependency bumps, or business-logic changes.'

Broaden natural keywords to include user phrases like 'broken tests', 'test failures', 'red tests', or 'fix my tests'.

Spell out concrete sub-actions (parse failures, group by file, run suites) to raise specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (failing tests) and one concrete action ('fix'), but 'systematically fix all failing tests' describes a single bundled action rather than multiple distinct concrete actions; no enumeration of sub-actions like parse failures, group by file, or run suites.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (fix all failing tests) but the 'when' is only weakly implied by 'after business logic changes or refactoring' with no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes the natural phrases 'failing tests' and 'business logic changes', but misses common synonyms users say ('broken tests', 'test failures', 'red tests', 'fix my tests') and any file extensions or framework hints.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger 'after business logic changes or refactoring' plus 'failing tests' carves a fairly specific niche that overlaps mainly with a TDD skill but is mostly distinct; minor overlap risk remains.

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
NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
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.