CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

test-automator

Master AI-powered test automation with modern frameworks, self-healing tests, and comprehensive quality engineering. Build scalable testing strategies with advanced CI/CD integration.

42

Quality

42%

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/test-automator/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is test-automator in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

35%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 skill body is a persona-style capability enumeration rather than actionable guidance: verbose, abstract, with no executable examples and a broken file reference. It functions as a role description, not an operational skill.

Suggestions

Collapse the capability/knowledge-base bullet lists into a short overview and move detailed tool guidance into real reference files under references/ (the cited 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' does not exist).

Add concrete, executable examples — e.g. sample Playwright/Postman/K6 snippets and exact CI/CD commands — instead of abstract 'apply best practices' directives.

Turn the Response Approach into a real workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g. 'run tests → if failures, diagnose → re-run before merging') for the batch/CI operations the skill covers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~215 lines of capability/behavioral-trait/knowledge-base bullet lists enumerating concepts Claude already knows (TDD schools, red-green-refactor, test doubles, mutation testing), making it noticeably verbose and padded.

2 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is high-level and abstract ('Clarify goals', 'Apply relevant best practices', 'Design comprehensive test strategy') with no executable code, commands, or concrete examples — it describes rather than instructs.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

An 8-step Response Approach sequence exists, but steps are abstract labels with no concrete commands or explicit validation checkpoints, so checkpoints are missing or only implicit.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There is genuine section structure, but the one external reference ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') is broken — no references/ directory or such file exists — and large capability lists that belong in separate files are inlined.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 names a clear niche and a few actions but relies on buzzwords and omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance. It reads as a marketing tagline rather than a precise, trigger-rich skill description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when building or maintaining automated test suites, setting up CI/CD test pipelines, or adopting TDD/self-healing tests'.

Replace buzzwords ('AI-powered', 'comprehensive quality engineering', 'modern frameworks') with concrete actions users would recognize (e.g. 'generate and run Playwright/Selenium UI tests', 'parallelize test execution in GitHub Actions').

Include natural synonyms and tool/file keywords users actually say (e.g. 'automated tests', 'test suite', 'regression tests', 'Playwright', '.feature files').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('test automation') and a couple of actions ('Build scalable testing strategies', 'CI/CD integration'), but the phrasing is buzzword-heavy ('AI-powered', 'modern frameworks', 'comprehensive quality engineering') rather than listing several concrete actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is present (test automation with frameworks, self-healing tests, CI/CD) but there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant terms a user might say ('test automation', 'testing strategies', 'CI/CD', 'self-healing tests'), but misses common synonyms/variations ('automated tests', 'test suite', 'QA', 'regression tests') and leans on non-natural marketing phrases.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Test automation' is a recognizable niche, but the broad phrasing ('comprehensive quality engineering', 'modern frameworks') leaves overlap risk with general software-engineering, QA, or CI/CD skills.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

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.