testing-patterns
Write automated tests using RSpec, Capybara, and FactoryBot for Rails applications. Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or when the user mentions testing, specs, RSpec, Capybara, or test data. Avoid using rails console or server for testing.
65
77%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/testing-patterns/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid skill description with excellent trigger terms and completeness. It clearly identifies when to use the skill and includes relevant natural language keywords. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed (e.g., writing model specs, feature specs, generating factories, setting up test helpers).
Suggestions
Expand the capability list with more specific actions, e.g., 'Write model specs, request specs, feature specs, generate factories, and configure test helpers using RSpec, Capybara, and FactoryBot for Rails applications.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (automated tests for Rails) and key tools (RSpec, Capybara, FactoryBot), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions beyond 'write automated tests'. Could specify types of tests (unit, integration, system), generating factories, writing feature specs, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (write automated tests using RSpec, Capybara, and FactoryBot for Rails applications) and 'when' (implementing features, fixing bugs, or when user mentions testing/specs/RSpec/Capybara/test data). Also includes a helpful exclusion ('Avoid using rails console or server for testing'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'testing', 'specs', 'RSpec', 'Capybara', 'test data', 'implementing features', 'fixing bugs'. These cover common variations of how users would request testing help in a Rails context. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to Rails testing with specific frameworks (RSpec, Capybara, FactoryBot), making it highly distinguishable from general coding skills, other testing frameworks, or non-Rails skills. The explicit tool names create a distinct niche. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 is a solid, actionable testing skill with excellent concrete examples, particularly the let vs let! comparison and the Turbo confirm dialog helper. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (explaining things Claude already knows, a useless 'Future Topics' section), and the lack of an explicit test-writing workflow with validation checkpoints. The content would benefit from trimming redundant explanations and adding a clear write-run-verify sequence.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Future Topics' section entirely—it provides no actionable value and wastes tokens.
Remove or condense the 'Tech Stack' section and 'General Guidelines' bullets that state things Claude already knows (e.g., 'Keep tests focused and readable', 'Use factories for test data creation').
Add a brief workflow section showing the test-writing cycle: write test → run `bundle exec rspec path/to/spec` → review failures → fix → re-run, to provide validation checkpoints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary content. The 'Tech Stack' section explains what RSpec, Capybara, and FactoryBot are (which Claude already knows). The 'General Guidelines' section contains generic advice like 'keep tests focused and readable.' The let vs let! section is thorough but could be tightened—the 'Key Insight' at the end repeats what was already demonstrated. The 'Future Topics' section adds zero value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable, copy-paste ready code examples throughout: validation testing patterns with build, system test examples with let/let!, data-testid usage with view and spec code, Turbo confirm dialog helpers with complete setup and usage. All examples are concrete and specific to the project's patterns. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill provides clear patterns for individual testing scenarios but lacks an overall workflow sequence for writing tests. There are no validation checkpoints—e.g., no guidance on running tests after writing them, checking coverage, or handling test failures. For a skill involving test creation, a clear write-run-fix cycle would strengthen this. The test command is provided but not integrated into a workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear headers and sections, but it's a fairly long monolithic document (~200 lines) with no references to external files. The Turbo confirm helper setup and detailed let/let! examples could be split into separate reference files. The 'Future Topics' section hints at content that doesn't exist. However, for a standalone skill with no bundle, the sectioning is reasonable. | 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
- RoleModel/rolemodel-skills
- Commit
72e8136
- 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.