team-quality-assurance
Unified team skill for quality assurance. Full closed-loop QA combining issue discovery and software testing. Triggers on "team quality-assurance", "team qa".
69
62%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/team-quality-assurance/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
40%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 relies heavily on abstract terminology ('closed-loop QA', 'issue discovery') without specifying concrete actions the skill performs. While it includes some trigger terms, they are narrow command-style phrases rather than natural language a user would use. The description would benefit significantly from listing specific capabilities and broader natural-language trigger scenarios.
Suggestions
List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Writes unit and integration tests, identifies bugs through code analysis, generates test plans, tracks test coverage, and validates fixes.'
Replace the narrow 'Triggers on' clause with a broader 'Use when...' clause covering natural user phrases like 'write tests', 'check for bugs', 'test this code', 'improve test coverage', 'regression testing'.
Clarify what 'closed-loop QA' means in practical terms to distinguish this skill from simpler testing or code review skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description says 'Full closed-loop QA combining issue discovery and software testing' which names a domain but uses vague, buzzword-heavy language ('closed-loop QA') without listing concrete actions like 'write unit tests', 'run test suites', 'file bug reports', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is weakly stated ('issue discovery and software testing') and the 'when' is limited to trigger phrases ('team quality-assurance', 'team qa') rather than describing natural usage scenarios. The trigger phrases are command-like rather than describing when Claude should select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'quality assurance', 'qa', and 'software testing' which are relevant keywords, but these are fairly generic. Missing natural user phrases like 'write tests', 'find bugs', 'test coverage', 'run tests', 'regression testing', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'team qa' and 'team quality-assurance' trigger terms provide some distinctiveness, but 'software testing' and 'issue discovery' are broad enough to overlap with testing-specific skills, debugging skills, or code review skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured orchestration skill that clearly defines a multi-agent QA pipeline with concrete templates, explicit delegation rules, and thorough error handling. The workflow is well-sequenced with validation checkpoints and the progressive disclosure is excellent with clear references to role-specific files. Minor verbosity in some tables and the model selection guide could be trimmed, but overall the content is highly actionable and well-organized for its complexity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is fairly dense and information-rich, but includes some sections that could be tightened—e.g., the Model Selection Guide rationale column restates obvious points, and the architecture ASCII diagram, while helpful, adds bulk. Overall mostly efficient for a complex orchestration skill but not maximally lean. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete spawn_agent templates with exact parameter structures, specific tool call verdicts in the delegation lock table, exact file paths, CLI commands, message bus API calls, and a complete request_user_input example. Guidance is copy-paste ready for an orchestrating agent. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The pipeline sequence (scout -> strategist -> generator -> executor -> analyst) is clearly defined with explicit validation checkpoints: agent health checks via list_agents, timeout handling with escalation steps (STATUS_CHECK -> FINALIZE -> close), GC loops with max 3 rounds, and error handling table covering failure scenarios with resolutions. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to role files (roles/<name>/role.md) and spec files (specs/pipelines.md, specs/team-config.json). The Role Registry table provides a clean navigation index. Content is appropriately split between the overview and referenced role/spec files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
- Commit
227244f
- 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.