testing-patterns
Cross-language testing strategies and patterns. Triggers on: test pyramid, unit test, integration test, e2e test, TDD, BDD, test coverage, mocking strategy, test doubles, test isolation.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:NeverSight/skills_feed --skill testing-patterns72
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
72%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 excels at trigger term coverage with comprehensive testing vocabulary that users would naturally use. However, it lacks specificity about what concrete actions the skill performs - 'strategies and patterns' is too abstract. The 'Triggers on:' format effectively communicates when to use it, but the capability description needs more concrete verbs.
Suggestions
Replace 'strategies and patterns' with specific actions like 'Design test architectures, recommend mocking approaches, structure test suites, implement TDD/BDD workflows'
Add a brief 'Use when...' clause that complements the trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when designing test strategy, choosing between test types, or implementing testing best practices'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (testing) and mentions 'strategies and patterns' but doesn't list concrete actions like 'write unit tests', 'generate mocks', or 'analyze coverage reports'. The description tells what it's about but not what it actually does. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'when' is addressed via 'Triggers on:' with explicit trigger terms, but the 'what' is weak - 'strategies and patterns' is vague and doesn't explain what actions Claude will perform. Missing a clear 'Use when...' clause format but has equivalent trigger guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural testing terminology users would say: 'test pyramid', 'unit test', 'integration test', 'e2e test', 'TDD', 'BDD', 'test coverage', 'mocking strategy', 'test doubles', 'test isolation'. These are all terms developers naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'cross-language' focus and specific testing terminology (test pyramid, TDD, BDD, test doubles) creates a clear niche. The explicit trigger terms make it unlikely to conflict with language-specific testing skills or general coding skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a solid reference for testing concepts with good organization and clear navigation to additional resources. However, it leans toward describing testing concepts rather than providing executable, actionable guidance. The content would benefit from more concrete code examples and less explanation of fundamentals Claude already understands.
Suggestions
Replace descriptive test type definitions with executable test examples in a specific language or framework-agnostic pseudocode that's clearly marked as such
Add concrete, copy-paste-ready code examples for test doubles instead of just describing what each type does
Include a workflow section showing the sequence of running unit → integration → e2e tests with validation checkpoints (e.g., 'if unit tests fail, fix before running integration')
Remove or condense the 'What to Test' section as these are standard testing principles Claude already knows
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably efficient but includes some explanatory text Claude already knows (e.g., basic definitions of test types, the ASCII pyramid). The tables and checklists are well-structured, but some sections like 'What to Test' explain obvious testing principles. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides some concrete examples (AAA pattern in Python, naming conventions) but much content is descriptive rather than executable. The test doubles table describes concepts rather than showing implementation. Database isolation options are listed without executable code. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The AAA pattern provides a clear single-test workflow, but there's no overall testing workflow with validation checkpoints. Missing guidance on when to run which tests in sequence, how to verify test quality, or feedback loops for failing tests. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with clear overview sections and well-signaled one-level-deep references to additional resources (tdd-workflow.md, mocking-strategies.md, etc.). Content is appropriately split between overview and detailed materials. | 3 / 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.
- 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.