sqlitecpp-testing-practices

GoogleTest patterns and testing practices for SQLiteCpp test coverage and structure.

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/sqlitecpp-testing-practices/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is lean, highly actionable, and well-organized with concrete code, commands, and file targets. The only gap is the 'Adding a New Test File' workflow, which lacks an explicit validation checkpoint to confirm the new test is registered and runs under both build systems.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification step to 'Adding a New Test File', e.g. 'Then run both `ctest --output-on-failure` and `meson test -C builddir` to confirm the new test is registered and passes in each build system.'

Frame the Running Tests commands as a checkpoint within the add-test workflow rather than only as a standalone section, so the validate -> fix -> retry loop is explicit.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean throughout — tight bullets, one compact code example, and specific commands with no padding explaining what GoogleTest or testing is, matching 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'. Not a 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation to tighten.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides a complete, executable TEST() code block and specific commands ("ctest --output-on-failure", "meson test -C builddir --gtest_filter=Database.*") with concrete registration targets ("SQLITECPP_TESTS", "sqlitecpp_test_srcs"), matching 'fully executable code/commands; copy-paste ready'. Not a 2 because guidance is complete rather than pseudocode or missing key details.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	"Adding a New Test File" lists a clear sequence (create file, register in CMakeLists.txt, register in meson.build) but has no explicit validation checkpoint to confirm registration in both build systems, matching 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'. Not a 3 because there is no explicit verify/feedback step; not a 1 because the sequence is present and ordered.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The ~50-line body has well-organized sections (Scope, Test File Structure, Adding a New Test File, Common Patterns, Running Tests, Canonical References, Cross-References) with one-level-deep cross-references clearly signaled, and no bundle files are needed — per the rubric guideline a simple, well-organized skill scores 3. Not a 2 because structure and signaling are clean rather than monolithic or ambiguous.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 names a clear, distinctive niche but reads as a topic phrase rather than a trigger-rich, action-oriented description. It states what the skill covers but omits an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which limits completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when writing or reviewing SQLiteCpp tests with GoogleTest, adding test files, or fixing test coverage.'

Lead with concrete actions instead of a topic noun phrase, e.g. 'Write GoogleTest cases for SQLiteCpp, structure tests in tests/*_test.cpp, and register them in CMake and Meson.'

Include natural user-spoken variations (e.g. 'tests', 'unit tests', 'gtest') to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes the domain and aspects ("GoogleTest patterns and testing practices for SQLiteCpp test coverage and structure") but presents a topic phrase rather than a list of concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor. Not a 3 because no multiple specific concrete actions are enumerated; not a 1 because it is domain-specific rather than vague.	2 / 3
Completeness	It answers 'what' (GoogleTest patterns/practices for SQLiteCpp coverage and structure) but has no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so 'when' is only implied — per the rubric guideline this caps completeness at 2. Not a 3 because there is no explicit when clause; not a 1 because the what is clearly stated.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant terms appear ("GoogleTest", "testing", "SQLiteCpp", "test coverage") but the phrasing is formal ("patterns and testing practices ... structure") and lacks common user-spoken variations, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'. Not a 3 because coverage of natural terms is thin; not a 1 because the keywords are real and on-domain.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is narrow and distinctive ("GoogleTest ... SQLiteCpp test coverage and structure"), unlikely to trigger the wrong skill, matching 'clear niche with distinct triggers; unlikely to conflict'. Not a 2 because it is more specific than 'works with document files'; the lower anchor would require meaningful overlap.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: SRombauts/SQLiteCpp
Path: .claude/skills/sqlitecpp-testing-practices/SKILL.md
Commit: 736fb31

Reviewed: 7 days 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.