e2e-testing-patterns

Build reliable, fast, and maintainable end-to-end test suites that provide confidence to ship code quickly and catch regressions before users do.

Quality

51%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/e2e-testing-patterns/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is e2e-testing-patterns in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Quality

Content

50%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 content is well-structured and token-efficient but lacks executable guidance and validation feedback loops, and its single external reference is broken. Adding concrete tool-specific examples and either creating or removing the referenced playbook would materially improve the score.

Suggestions

Add a concrete, executable example (e.g. a Playwright/Cypress snippet showing a stable selector, retry config, and parallel run command) to move actionability from abstract hints to copy-paste-ready guidance.

Insert an explicit validation/feedback loop in the workflow, e.g. 'Run suite -> on failure, inspect trace/artifacts -> fix selector or add retry -> re-run until green'.

Resolve the broken reference: either create resources/implementation-playbook.md or remove the 'Resources' line, since pointing to a non-existent file undermines navigation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with short bulleted sections and no concept over-explanation, but the opening line ('Build reliable, fast, and maintainable end-to-end test suites...') duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim, a minor redundant token cost that keeps it just below the fully lean anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level hints ('Build stable selectors and test data strategies', 'Implement tests with retries, tracing, and isolation') with no executable code, commands, or named tools, matching the 'minimal concrete guidance; missing specific steps' anchor rather than the incomplete-pseudocode anchor above.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence is present (identify journeys -> selectors/data -> implement -> run in CI) but there are no validation checkpoints or flaky-test feedback loops (run -> diagnose -> fix -> retry), and CI/batch execution without verification caps the score at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized ('Use this skill when', 'Do not use', 'Instructions', 'Safety', 'Resources'), but the sole reference 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' points to a directory that does not exist in the bundle, leaving a dangling/broken reference that prevents a higher score.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 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 states a clear purpose and domain but stops short of providing explicit trigger phrases or comprehensive concrete actions. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural user terms would lift both completeness and trigger_term_quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers users say, e.g. 'Use when writing or debugging E2E tests, fixing flaky tests, or setting up Playwright/Cypress suites'.

Replace aspirational adjectives ('reliable, fast, maintainable') with concrete capabilities (e.g. 'select stable selectors, manage test data, parallelize runs, capture artifacts').

Add common synonyms/extensions like 'E2E tests', '.spec.ts', and tool names so the description matches natural user phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes 'Build reliable, fast, and maintainable end-to-end test suites' and 'catch regressions before users do' name the domain plus a couple of actions, but 'reliable, fast, maintainable' are aspirational adjectives rather than concrete capabilities, matching the 'domain + 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the multi-action anchor above.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (build E2E test suites) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric a missing explicit-when caps completeness at 3 rather than 4.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like 'end-to-end test suites' and 'regressions' are present, but common variations users actually say ('E2E tests', 'flaky tests', 'Playwright', 'Cypress', browser testing) are missing, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'end-to-end test suites' carves a clear niche mostly distinct from unit/integration testing with only minor overlap risk against closely related testing skills, matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap' anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/e2e-testing-patterns/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 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.