dogfood

Exploratory QA of web apps: find bugs, evidence, reports.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/dogfood/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

92%

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

The content is a strong, actionable, well-sequenced QA workflow with executable browser commands and per-interaction validation. Its main weakness is a dangling reference to a non-existent report template, which slightly undermines progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Create the missing templates/dogfood-report-template.md referenced in Phase 5, or inline the report template so the reference resolves.

Tighten the minor redundancy between the Phase 2 inline examples, the Tools Reference table, and the Tips section.

Optionally add a brief error-recovery note for navigation or tool failures to strengthen the feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, using executable tool calls instead of explaining what browsers or QA are; minor repetition between inline examples, the Tools Reference table, and Tips keeps it from being wasteful but does not push it to verbose.	3 / 3
Actionability	It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready browser commands with real parameters (e.g. browser_navigate(url=...), browser_vision(question=..., annotate=true), browser_click(ref='@eN')) throughout the workflow.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 5-phase workflow with per-interaction validation checkpoints (console errors, visual changes, expected vs actual) in Phase 2 and a de-duplication pass in Phase 4; the operation is non-destructive so the missing destructive-op feedback loop does not apply.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	It signals a one-level-deep reference to the real references/issue-taxonomy.md, but Phase 5 also references templates/dogfood-report-template.md which does not exist, leaving a dangling reference that weakens navigation.	2 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

60%

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 is terse and names concrete actions, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and relies on a narrow keyword set, capping completeness and trigger quality. Expanding with natural trigger terms and a 'Use when...' clause would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when testing web apps, running exploratory QA, or finding and reporting browser bugs.'

Broaden trigger terms to include common phrasings users say: 'testing', 'test', 'browser testing', 'website QA', 'bug hunting'.

Keep the concise action list but pair it with the trigger guidance so both 'what' and 'when' are explicit.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase 'find bugs, evidence, reports' lists multiple concrete actions (finding bugs, capturing evidence, producing reports), matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does but provides no 'Use when...' trigger guidance, so 'when' is entirely missing and completeness is capped at 2 per the rubric guideline.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Exploratory QA', 'web apps', and 'find bugs' are relevant natural terms, but common variations like 'testing', 'test', 'browser testing', or 'website' are missing.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Exploratory QA of web apps' is a recognizable niche but the thin trigger vocabulary leaves it somewhat generic and able to overlap with adjacent testing skills.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Repository: NousResearch/hermes-agent
Path: skills/dogfood/SKILL.md
Commit: 6a8d318

Reviewed: about 13 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.