Name: web3-testing
Rating: 55.2 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

Blog Docs Log in Get started

web3-testing

Master comprehensive testing strategies for smart contracts using Hardhat, Foundry, and advanced testing patterns.

Quality

63%

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/web3-testing/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is web3-testing in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Quality

Content

65%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 strong on executable, actionable code across Hardhat and Foundry testing but is organized as a reference catalog with no sequenced workflow or validation checkpoints, and it inlines material that its own Resources section points to non-existent bundle files for.

Suggestions

Add a short sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g., 1. compile, 2. run unit tests, 3. check coverage threshold, 4. verify on Etherscan) instead of only a high-level Instructions list.

Move the full hardhat.config.js, test-suite, and foundry.toml into the referenced bundle files and keep only concise excerpts inline, then create those files so the Resources links resolve.

Trim the verbatim description repeat under the H1 and the largely redundant 'Best Practices' list to tighten token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient, leading with executable code and avoiding concept filler, but repeats the description verbatim as a heading and ends with a best-practices list that restates earlier content, leaving minor trim opportunities.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready code for hardhat config, unit tests, Forge/fuzz tests, mainnet forking, gas comparison, and CI, with only minor placeholders (e.g. '// Test functionality') keeping it from fully covering every case.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A short 'Instructions' list outlines high-level steps but there is no sequenced multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints for setting up and running the test suites; the body reads as a pattern catalog rather than a guided process.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers give reasonable structure and a Resources section lists reference/asset/script files, but the body inlines large configs and test suites that those files should hold, and the referenced bundle files do not actually exist on disk.	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 names a specific niche and tools but is light on concrete actions and entirely missing a 'Use when...' trigger clause. It is clearly distinct yet only moderately complete and specific.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers (e.g., 'Use when writing or running Solidity test suites, fuzzing contracts, forking mainnet, or measuring gas').

Replace generic verbs like 'Master comprehensive testing strategies' with specific actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Set up Hardhat/Foundry test suites, write unit and fuzz tests, fork mainnet, measure gas, and report coverage').

Add common synonym trigger terms (Solidity tests, Forge, fuzzing, gas optimization, mainnet fork) to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (smart contract testing) and two concrete tools (Hardhat, Foundry) plus 'advanced testing patterns', but the actions are generic ('Master comprehensive testing strategies') rather than enumerated concrete operations.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' (testing strategies for smart contracts via Hardhat/Foundry) but no 'when'/'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ('smart contracts', 'Hardhat', 'Foundry', 'testing') with good coverage, though it omits common synonyms like Solidity tests, Forge, fuzzing, or gas testing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (smart contract testing with named tools) with minor overlap risk, but lacks the explicit distinct trigger phrases that characterize the anchor 5 example.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 9 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/web3-testing/SKILL.md
Commit: 900c504

Reviewed: 4 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.