Unified team skill for testing team. Progressive test coverage through Generator-Critic loops, shared memory, and dynamic layer selection. Triggers on "team testing".
63
55%
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-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 minimal and unnatural. 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 'unified team skill' means by specifying the actual capabilities and outputs the skill produces.
| 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 too abstract and the 'when' is too 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 guidance for multi-agent test pipeline coordination. Its strengths are the concrete spawn templates, explicit delegation lock, clear role routing, and well-organized progressive disclosure to role-specific files. Minor verbosity in some sections (architecture diagram redundancy, model selection table with repeated defaults) prevents a perfect conciseness score, but overall token efficiency is reasonable for the complexity of the task.
| 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, it largely avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete spawn_agent templates with exact parameter structures, specific tool call patterns, explicit delegation lock tables with allowed/blocked verdicts, timeout cascades, and copy-paste ready code snippets for parallel spawning and agent health checks. The guidance is highly specific and executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step pipeline (strategist -> generator -> executor -> analyst) is clearly sequenced. Validation checkpoints are present: timeout cascades (STATUS_CHECK -> FINALIZE -> close), agent health reconciliation, GC loop coordination with coverage targets, and explicit error handling table with resolutions. The delegation lock serves as a validation gate for the coordinator role. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview pointing to one-level-deep role files (roles/coordinator/role.md, roles/strategist/role.md, etc.) and spec files (specs/pipelines.md, specs/team-config.json). References are well-signaled in the Role Registry table with direct links. Content is appropriately split between the overview here and detailed role instructions in referenced 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 | |
227244f
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.