Tessl • The management layer for AI agent skills

SkillPublic

tdd

Run a red-green-refactor TDD workflow — generate failing tests first, implement to green, then check coverage gaps. Usage: /tdd <generate|coverage|validate> [target]

Quality

86%

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

Quality

Content

92%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.

A well-structured command skill: executable snippets, explicit red/green validation checkpoints, a coverage feedback loop, and clean one-level-deep reference delegation. The only blemish is mild path duplication between the inline mode steps and the Repo Assets section.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes competence — no TDD concept explanations, and the tooling note ("Python library modules, not CLI tools — import them; do not invoke them as commands") is genuinely non-obvious. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because the "Repo Assets (verified paths)" section duplicates paths already cited inline in each mode; not 3 since there is no padded or unnecessary explanation.	4 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable copy-paste snippets ("cd engineering-team/skills/tdd-guide/scripts && python3 -c "from test_generator import ...") plus specific coverage commands ("pytest --cov --cov-report=lcov", "vitest run --coverage", "jest --coverage") cover the common cases. Matches the fully-executable anchor.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The generate mode has explicit validation checkpoints ("run them and confirm they FAIL (red)", "refactor with tests staying green"), the coverage mode closes a feedback loop ("For each gap, return to /tdd generate — coverage gaps are filled with tests, not excuses"), and validate provides a concrete checklist. All three hallmarks of the top anchor are present.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The overview stays thin while detail is delegated one level deep to clearly signaled references (tdd-best-practices.md, framework-guide.md, ci-integration.md) and a consolidated "Repo Assets (verified paths)" index; navigation is unambiguous. Scored on the written structure, as the referenced engineering-team bundle is not present in this review workspace.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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 is concrete and distinctive, clearly stating what the skill does with an actionable mode enumeration. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which both caps completeness and limits natural trigger-term coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when practicing test-driven development, writing tests before implementation, or analyzing coverage gaps."

Include natural synonyms users would say — "test-driven development", "unit tests", "test coverage" — alongside "TDD" and "red-green-refactor".

Clarify that the usage line is an invocation hint (or fold it into the trigger clause) so the when-to-use condition is stated rather than implied by command syntax.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"generate failing tests first, implement to green, then check coverage gaps" lists multiple concrete actions, and "Usage: /tdd <generate\|coverage\|validate> [target]" enumerates all modes. Matches the comprehensive multi-action anchor; not 4 because action coverage spans the skill's full surface with no notable gap.	5 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear ("Run a red-green-refactor TDD workflow — generate failing tests first, implement to green, then check coverage gaps"), but the only 'when'-adjacent text is "Usage: /tdd <generate\|coverage\|validate> [target]", which is invocation syntax rather than a when-to-use trigger. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3; it is not 4 because the 'when' is absent rather than merely under-specified.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like "TDD", "red-green-refactor", "failing tests", and "coverage gaps" are present, but common synonyms users would say — "test-driven development" spelled out, "unit tests", "test coverage" — are missing. Good coverage with a few natural terms absent, so anchor 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"red-green-refactor TDD workflow" and "coverage gaps" carve a clear niche with triggers distinct from generic testing or coverage skills. Anchor 5 fits; not 4 because the trigger phrases are specific to TDD practice and unlikely to fire a wrong skill.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: .gemini/skills/tdd/SKILL.md
Revision: 08cd8a9

Reviewed: 2 days ago

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.

tdd

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?