Unified test-fix pipeline combining test generation (session, context, analysis, task gen) with iterative test-cycle execution (adaptive strategy, progressive testing, CLI fallback). Triggers on "workflow-test-fix", "test fix workflow".
37
35%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Critical
Do not install without reviewing
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/workflow-test-fix/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
35%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 attempts to convey a complex pipeline but relies heavily on internal implementation terminology rather than user-facing language. The trigger terms are rigid command strings rather than natural phrases users would say, and the parenthetical lists of sub-features read as jargon. It would benefit from clearer plain-language descriptions of what problems it solves and broader natural-language trigger terms.
Suggestions
Replace jargon-heavy parenthetical lists with plain-language actions, e.g., 'Generates test cases, runs them iteratively, and fixes failures automatically'.
Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'fix failing tests', 'generate and run tests', 'debug test failures', 'test suite', or 'broken tests'.
Expand the 'Use when...' clause to describe scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to generate tests and iteratively fix failures until all tests pass'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (test generation and execution) and mentions some actions like 'session, context, analysis, task gen' and 'adaptive strategy, progressive testing, CLI fallback', but these are more like internal implementation details than concrete user-facing actions. The parenthetical lists read as jargon rather than clear capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | It describes what it does (combines test generation with iterative test-cycle execution) and has explicit trigger phrases, but the 'when' guidance is limited to exact command strings rather than describing scenarios or conditions when the skill should be selected. The trigger terms function more as invocation commands than natural usage guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms 'workflow-test-fix' and 'test fix workflow' are very specific command-like phrases that users would not naturally say. Natural terms like 'fix failing tests', 'run tests', 'debug test failures', or 'generate tests' are absent. The description relies on technical jargon like 'adaptive strategy' and 'CLI fallback' rather than user-facing language. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of test generation and test-fix iteration is somewhat specific, but terms like 'test generation' and 'testing' could overlap with other testing-related skills. The very narrow trigger terms reduce conflict risk but also reduce discoverability. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a comprehensive but excessively verbose orchestration document that describes a 5-phase test-fix pipeline. Its main weakness is extreme redundancy — the same pipeline flow is described through an architecture diagram, execution flow, data flow, coordinator checklist, and TodoWrite patterns, inflating the document far beyond what's needed. While the structure is logical and quality thresholds are concrete, the actual execution details are delegated to phase files that aren't provided, making the skill more of a reference document than an actionable guide.
Suggestions
Consolidate the redundant pipeline descriptions (architecture diagram, execution flow, data flow, coordinator checklist) into a single authoritative flow section — currently the same information appears 4-5 times in different formats.
Move the TodoWrite pattern examples, session file structure, and detailed error handling tables into separate reference files (e.g., patterns/todo-tracking.md, reference/error-handling.md) to reduce the main SKILL.md to a lean orchestration overview.
Remove or drastically shorten the Summary Output template (Section 10) — Claude can generate appropriate summaries from the data without a full template being specified inline.
Provide the referenced phase files (phases/01-05.md) as bundle files, or note their absence — without them, the skill's core execution logic is unverifiable and the progressive disclosure pattern is incomplete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~400+ lines with massive redundancy. The architecture diagram, data flow, execution flow, and coordinator checklist all describe the same pipeline multiple times. The TodoWrite pattern section shows three full JSON examples that repeat similar information. Much of this content (what PDFs are equivalent: explaining orchestration concepts, agent roles, session file structures) could be dramatically condensed. The summary output template is shown in full twice conceptually. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete file paths, phase document references, and specific quality thresholds (95% pass rate, 80% coverage). However, it's primarily an orchestration document that delegates all actual execution to phase files (phases/01-05) which are not provided. The JavaScript code for preference collection is a useful concrete example, but most guidance is structural/conceptual rather than directly executable. Input processing patterns are clear but lack complete executable examples. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-phase pipeline is clearly sequenced (Phase 1→5) with explicit data flow between phases. Error handling tables and completion conditions are well-defined. However, validation checkpoints within phases are delegated to external files not provided, and the fix loop's feedback mechanism (validate → fix → retry) is described at a high level without the actual phase 5 implementation details. The compact recovery section adds complexity without clear actionable steps for error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill correctly references five phase documents (phases/01-05.md) with a progressive loading pattern, which is good design. However, no bundle files are provided, so these references are unverifiable. More critically, the SKILL.md itself is a monolithic wall of text that inlines enormous amounts of detail (full TodoWrite examples, complete file structures, multiple redundant flow diagrams) that should be in separate reference files. The overview-level document contains implementation-level detail. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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.