Unified team skill for testing team. Progressive test coverage through Generator-Critic loops, shared memory, and dynamic layer selection. Triggers on "team testing".
50
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/team-testing/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
25%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description relies heavily on internal jargon and abstract concepts without explaining concrete actions the skill performs. It lacks natural trigger terms that users would actually use when requesting testing help, and the 'when' clause is artificially narrow. The description would benefit significantly from listing specific testing actions and including common user-facing keywords.
Suggestions
Replace jargon like 'Generator-Critic loops' and 'dynamic layer selection' with concrete actions such as 'generate unit tests', 'analyze test coverage gaps', 'create integration tests'.
Add a proper 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'write tests', 'test coverage', 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'test suite', 'QA'.
Clarify what 'shared memory' and 'dynamic layer selection' mean in practical terms so Claude can understand when this skill is appropriate versus other testing skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses abstract, jargon-heavy language like 'Generator-Critic loops', 'shared memory', and 'dynamic layer selection' without describing concrete actions. It does not list specific tasks the skill performs (e.g., 'generate unit tests', 'run test suites'). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | It vaguely addresses 'what' (progressive test coverage through specific mechanisms) and has a minimal 'when' trigger ('Triggers on team testing'), but the 'what' is abstract and the 'when' is extremely narrow and unnatural. The trigger clause exists but is weak. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only explicit trigger is 'team testing', which is not a natural phrase users would say. Terms like 'Generator-Critic loops', 'shared memory', and 'dynamic layer selection' are internal jargon, not natural user language. Missing common terms like 'unit tests', 'test coverage', 'write tests', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The phrase 'team testing' and the specific jargon (Generator-Critic loops, shared memory) make it somewhat distinctive, but 'testing team' and 'test coverage' are broad enough to potentially overlap with other testing-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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 provides highly actionable coordination patterns with clear workflow sequencing and validation checkpoints. The progressive disclosure is excellent, using this file as a router to role-specific files. Minor conciseness improvements could be made by tightening redundant sections (architecture diagram vs role registry, model selection table with repeated defaults), but overall the content density is justified by the complexity of multi-agent coordination.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly dense and information-rich, but includes some redundancy (e.g., the ASCII architecture diagram plus the role registry table convey overlapping info). Some sections like Model Selection Guide with '(default)' repeated four times and the verbose spawn template could be tightened. However, most content is non-obvious coordination logic that Claude wouldn't inherently know. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, copy-paste-ready spawn_agent templates, specific tool call patterns, exact file paths, a clear delegation lock table with allowed/blocked verdicts, timeout cascade procedures, and executable coordination patterns. The guidance is highly specific and directly executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step pipeline is clearly sequenced (strategist -> generator -> executor -> analyst) with explicit validation checkpoints: timeout cascades (wait 30min -> STATUS_CHECK 3min -> FINALIZE 3min -> close), agent health checks via list_agents reconciliation, GC loop coordination with coverage targets, and error handling table. The delegation lock provides a clear decision framework before every action. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to role files (roles/coordinator/role.md, roles/strategist/role.md, etc.) and spec files (specs/pipelines.md, specs/team-config.json). The role registry table provides a clean navigation index. Content is appropriately split between this overview and the 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 | |
5ff5e86
Table of Contents
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.