unit-testing-test-generate

Generate comprehensive, maintainable unit tests across languages with strong coverage and edge case focus.

Quality

55%

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-claude/skills/unit-testing-test-generate/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is unit-testing-test-generate in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Quality

Content

57%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 is rich with concrete, mostly-executable code and a clear step sequence, but it is weighed down by an unnecessary role preamble, missing validation that generated tests actually pass, and a monolithic inline structure with no reference files. Several referenced helper methods are also undefined, leaving small execution gaps.

Suggestions

Add a validation checkpoint step (e.g. 'Run the generated suite and fix failures before reporting done') so the batch test-generation workflow has an explicit verify→fix→retry loop.

Define the referenced-but-missing helpers (_generate_mock_args, _calculate_complexity, _generate_empty_args, _generate_invalid_args, create_targeted_test, find_low_coverage_files) or remove the calls so the examples are copy-paste complete.

Move the large generator classes into separate files under scripts/ and reference them one level deep, trimming the role-prompt and Context prose to keep the SKILL.md overview lean.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly dense executable code, but the role-prompt preamble ('You are a test automation expert...'), the 'Context' paragraph, and several large inline generators pad the token budget with content Claude could derive — 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation that could be tightened.'	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides substantial concrete, mostly-executable Python/TypeScript/React code covering the common cases, but several referenced helpers (_generate_mock_args, _calculate_complexity, _generate_empty_args, create_targeted_test) are called but never defined, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The six numbered steps give a clear sequence (analyze → generate → coverage → mock), but there are no validation checkpoints that the generated tests actually run or pass; test-suite generation is a batch operation, so per the rubric the missing verification loop caps this at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	There is reasonable section structure (numbered ### 1–6 plus an Output Format section), but no bundle files exist and the full TestGenerator/JestTestGenerator/CoverageAnalyzer implementations are all inlined rather than split into referenced files — 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline.'	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 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 conveys a clear purpose and reasonable specificity but omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, capping completeness, and lacks concrete framework keywords that users would naturally invoke. It is distinct enough as a niche with only minor overlap risk.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when generating unit tests for existing code, improving coverage, or scaffolding pytest/jest/junit suites.'

Add framework-specific keywords users actually say (pytest, jest, junit, go testing) to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten 'across languages with strong coverage and edge case focus' into a tighter list of concrete actions to lift specificity above the midpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain ('unit tests') and a few concrete actions ('generate comprehensive, maintainable unit tests', 'strong coverage', 'edge case focus'), but 'across languages' is broad and the action set is not comprehensive — fitting the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the several-specific-actions level above.	3 / 5
Completeness	It gives a clear 'what' (generate unit tests with coverage and edge-case focus) but no 'when'/'Use when...' trigger guidance at all; per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like 'unit tests', 'coverage', and 'edge case' appear, but it lacks common variations and concrete framework keywords (pytest, jest) users actually say, placing it at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full keyword coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Unit-test generation across languages is a fairly distinct niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, though it could overlap with broader testing/code-review skills — 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than a fully isolated niche.	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-claude/skills/unit-testing-test-generate/SKILL.md
Commit: 900c504

Reviewed: 7 hours 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.