scope-feature-tests

Plan testing for an Insight feature: risk-ordered test groups, target suites, scope boundaries and an acceptance gate. Use when deciding QA coverage, test dimensions or a test subtask. Review agreed requirements and inspect implementation, data flow and existing tests to expose risks and specification disagreements. Keep output at test-group level; quality-vector-tests turns that scope into tracked scenarios in an issue or FEATURE artifact.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced planning skill with concrete commands, templates, checkpoints, and properly externalized worked examples. Its main weakness is conciseness: several core ideas (differential gate, xfail-as-gate, registry-driven harnesses) are restated in multiple sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the differential-gate tagging (exact / known-diff(direction) / merge) into a single canonical statement and reference it from step 1, step 5, and the "Common axes" list instead of re-explaining it each time.

Define "xfail-as-gate" once (where it first appears in step 5) and point back to that definition from the worked-examples summaries rather than restating the rationale.

Trim the "Common axes worth probing" list to only axes not already covered in the numbered workflow, or mark it explicitly as a recap, to reduce the perceived repetition between the workflow and the axes list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly substantive domain guidance rather than concepts Claude already knows, but noticeably long with redundancy — the differential-gate (exact/known-diff/merge), xfail-as-gate, and registry-driven-harness points are each restated across step 1, step 5, the "Common axes" list, and the worked examples.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready commands (gh issue view … --json, git worktree list --porcelain, git show <branch>:<path>), concrete directory pointers (src/backend, src/ingestion, src/frontend) and literal compact/full output templates covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly numbered 8-step sequence (1, 1b, 2–8) with explicit checkpoints ("resolve them before claiming a test group's coverage", "report the mismatch before changing expectations", "confirm the boundary with the user") and an Acceptance checklist in the template.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is the procedural overview; five worked examples are split into real, one-level-deep reference files (references/example-*.md) that are clearly signaled and summarized in the "Worked examples" section, giving easy navigation.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, third-person description that clearly states what it does and when to use it, with concrete actions and an explicit hand-off boundary to the sibling quality-vector-tests skill. Trigger-term coverage is good but could add a couple more natural synonyms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "risk-ordered test groups, target suites, scope boundaries and an acceptance gate" plus "Review agreed requirements and inspect implementation, data flow and existing tests to expose risks and specification disagreements" — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's outputs.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (plan test groups, suites, scope boundaries, acceptance gate) and when ("Use when deciding QA coverage, test dimensions or a test subtask") with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural-keyword coverage via "Use when deciding QA coverage, test dimensions or a test subtask", plus "acceptance gate" and "test groups"; a few synonyms (e.g. "test plan", "test scope") are not present, so it stops short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche (test-scope planning for an Insight feature) with an explicit boundary against the closest sibling ("quality-vector-tests turns that scope into tracked scenarios"), leaving only minor overlap risk with that related QA skill.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: constructorfabric/insight
Path: .claude/skills/scope-feature-tests/SKILL.md
Commit: c31d302

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

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.