CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tdd-workflows-tdd-red

Generate failing tests for the TDD red phase to define expected behavior and edge cases.

55

Quality

62%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/tdd-workflows-tdd-red/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is tdd-workflows-tdd-red in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 body is actionable and well-sequenced with a concrete code example and a validation checkpoint, but it is moderately verbose with overlapping sections and keeps a large prompt template inline rather than splitting it into a reference file.

Suggestions

Move the large Prompt Template and/or Edge Case Categories into a references/ file and link to it, reducing SKILL.md token load and improving progressive disclosure.

Trim redundancy between the Instructions, Quality Checklist, and Anti-Patterns sections so each token earns its place.

Add a concrete example for at least one more framework (e.g. pytest parametrize) and an explicit validate-fix-retry loop in the Validation section to reach 5 on actionability and workflow clarity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (no "what is TDD" padding), but the large inline Prompt Template plus the Quality Checklist, Anti-Patterns, and Edge Case Categories overlap and could be tightened. Not a 4 because several sections carry redundancy; not a 2 because it is not heavily padded with unnecessary concept explanations.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides a copy-paste-ready TypeScript/Jest example and concrete per-framework patterns (vi.fn(), t.Parallel(), testify/assert, RSpec let), plus a parameterized prompt template. Not a 5 because only one full executable example is given and some categories (Property/Contract tests) lack concrete code; not a 3 because the guidance is genuinely executable rather than pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Numbered Instructions plus a Validation section with an explicit checkpoint ("Run tests - confirm they fail") give a clear sequence with most checkpoints present. Not a 5 because the error-recovery feedback loop is implicit rather than a validate-fix-retry cycle; not a 3 because checkpoints are present and the operation is non-destructive so the 3-cap does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is well-sectioned but is a single 160-line file with the large Prompt Template and Edge Case Categories inlined, and no references/scripts/assets bundle exists to offload detail. Not a 4 because content that could live in a separate reference (the prompt template) is inline with no external navigation; not a 2 because section headers provide genuine structure rather than minimal organization.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 clearly states what the skill does and names a concrete, recognizable niche (TDD red phase), but it omits an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, leaving the "when" only weakly implied and capping completeness. Trigger-term coverage is good though not exhaustive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when starting the TDD red phase, writing tests before implementation, or defining expected behavior and edge cases."

List one or two more concrete actions (e.g. "document test purpose", "output run commands") to lift specificity from 3 toward 4-5.

Include a common synonym such as "test-first" or "write tests first" to broaden natural trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (TDD red phase) and 1-2 concrete actions ("Generate failing tests", "define expected behavior and edge cases") but is not comprehensive in its action list. Not a 4 because it lacks several specific distinct actions; not a 2 because the actions named are concrete rather than minimal/generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear "what" (generate failing tests) but "when" is only weakly implied by "for the TDD red phase" with no explicit "Use when..." clause, capping completeness at 3 per the guidelines. Not a 4 because the trigger guidance is not explicit; not a 2 because the what is clearly stated and a weak when is implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"TDD red phase" and "failing tests" are natural phrases a user would say; coverage is good but a few natural synonyms ("test-first", "write tests first") are absent. Not a 5 because synonyms/variants are incomplete; not a 3 because the core natural terms are present rather than merely generic.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"TDD red phase" carves a clear niche distinct from green/refactor phases, with only minor overlap risk against general test-writing skills. Not a 5 because some overlap with broader testing skills remains; not a 3 because it is more specific than merely "somewhat specific".

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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
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.