MUST be used whenever fixing test coverage for a Flows app to meet the 80% line coverage hard gate. This skill finds AND fixes coverage gaps — it configures tooling, writes missing tests, covers untested paths, and refactors code for testability. It does not just report. Triggers: test coverage, fix tests, write tests, add tests, coverage fix, 80% coverage, coverage gate, missing tests, testability, vitest coverage, jest coverage.
71
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%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 is an excellent skill description that clearly communicates what the skill does, when to use it, and includes comprehensive trigger terms. It is specific about its domain (Flows app, 80% coverage gate), lists concrete actions, and explicitly differentiates itself by stating it does not just report but actively fixes coverage gaps. The explicit trigger terms list further strengthens discoverability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'configures tooling, writes missing tests, covers untested paths, and refactors code for testability.' Also explicitly states what it does NOT do ('does not just report'), which adds clarity. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (finds and fixes coverage gaps, configures tooling, writes missing tests, covers untested paths, refactors for testability) and 'when' ('MUST be used whenever fixing test coverage for a Flows app to meet the 80% line coverage hard gate') with explicit trigger terms listed. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms explicitly listed: 'test coverage, fix tests, write tests, add tests, coverage fix, 80% coverage, coverage gate, missing tests, testability, vitest coverage, jest coverage.' These are terms users would naturally use when requesting help with test coverage. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive — scoped specifically to 'Flows app' with an '80% line coverage hard gate' context. The combination of domain (Flows app), goal (80% coverage gate), and specific tooling references (vitest, jest) makes it clearly distinguishable from generic testing or code quality skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, highly actionable skill with an excellent multi-step workflow that includes validation checkpoints and feedback loops at every stage. Its main weakness is verbosity — the testing pattern templates and testability refactoring guidance, while useful, inflate the document significantly and include patterns Claude already knows well. The content would benefit from extracting reference material into separate files.
Suggestions
Extract the testing pattern examples (hooks, services, components) into a separate TESTING_PATTERNS.md reference file to reduce the main skill's token footprint by ~40%.
Trim the dependency mocking guidelines and testability refactoring table — Claude knows these patterns; focus only on project-specific conventions (e.g., the context injection preference over vi.mock).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is quite long (~300+ lines) with some verbosity, particularly in the testing pattern examples (hooks, services, components) which are somewhat generic patterns Claude already knows. The dependency mocking guidelines and testability refactoring table add value but could be more concise. The bash scripts and config examples earn their place, but the overall document could be tightened by ~30%. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable throughout — every step includes executable bash commands, concrete code examples, and specific file paths. The coverage config snippets, test file templates, and coverage parsing commands are all copy-paste ready. Each step tells Claude exactly what to do, check, and fix. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent 7-step sequential workflow with explicit validation checkpoints: verify tooling → validate scope → run tests → find gaps → fix low-coverage files → fix testability → report. Each step includes verification commands (re-run tests, check coverage), feedback loops ('repeat until each file reaches 80%'), and clear pass/fail criteria. The 'if X, fix it now' pattern throughout provides error recovery guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic document with no references to external files, which is understandable given no bundle files exist. However, the testing pattern examples (hooks, services, components) and the testability refactoring table could be split into separate reference files to keep the main skill leaner. The document is well-structured with clear sections but is quite long for a single file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
d6af887
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.