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 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'.
Expand trigger terms to include natural phrases users would say, such as 'write tests', 'test coverage', 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'test suite', 'QA'.
Add a proper 'Use when...' clause with explicit scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to generate tests, improve test coverage, or review existing test suites.'
| 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' is broad enough to potentially overlap with other testing-related skills. The niche is unclear because the actual capabilities are vaguely described. | 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 for a complex multi-agent testing pipeline. It excels at actionability with concrete templates and tool-call governance, and demonstrates excellent progressive disclosure by routing to role-specific files. The content is mostly efficient though some sections could be slightly tighter given the overall length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long but most content is structural and necessary for a complex multi-agent orchestration system. Some sections like the Model Selection Guide rationale column and the v4 Agent Coordination examples add moderate value but could be tighter. The ASCII architecture diagram and tables are efficient representations. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete spawn_agent templates with exact parameter structures, specific tool call verdicts in the Delegation Lock table, executable code patterns for parallel spawning and wait_agent, and precise file paths. The Worker Spawn Template and completion action are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step pipeline (strategist -> generator -> executor -> analyst) is clearly sequenced with the architecture diagram, role registry, and delegation lock providing explicit validation checkpoints. The GC loop coordination, agent health checks, and error handling table provide feedback loops and recovery paths for complex operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill acts as a clear router/overview, with each role linked to its own role.md file (one level deep). Specs are referenced separately, and the session directory structure provides a clear map. Navigation is well-signaled through the Role Registry table with direct links. | 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 | |
0f8e801
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.