CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

run-smoke-tests

Run Playwright smoke tests, debug failures, and verify fixes

49

Quality

52%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./cursor-team-kit/skills/run-smoke-tests/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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

This is a concise, well-structured skill that efficiently communicates the smoke testing workflow. Its main weakness is that the workflow steps and debugging guidance are somewhat generic—specific commands for trace inspection, concrete examples of common failures and fixes, and clearer validation checkpoints would significantly improve actionability.

Suggestions

Add concrete examples of how to inspect Playwright traces/logs (e.g., `npx playwright show-trace trace.zip`) and what to look for in common failure patterns.

Make the 'Build prerequisites' step actionable by specifying the actual build command(s) or referencing where to find them.

Add a specific example of a debug-fix cycle: show a sample failure output, the diagnosis, and the fix applied.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is lean and efficient. Every section serves a purpose, there's no explanation of what smoke tests are or how Playwright works, and it respects Claude's existing knowledge.

3 / 3

Actionability

The example commands are concrete and copy-paste ready, but the workflow steps (1-4) are fairly generic and lack specific executable guidance for debugging (e.g., how to inspect traces, what logs to look at, how to isolate root causes). The 'Build prerequisites' step is vague.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow has a clear sequence with a feedback loop (step 4: rerun until stable), but lacks explicit validation checkpoints and specific debugging steps. The 'inspect traces/logs' step is vague, and there's no concrete guidance on what constitutes a passing state or how to verify stability.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (Trigger, Workflow, Example Commands, Guardrails, Output) that are easy to navigate.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

32%

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 identifies a clear domain (Playwright smoke tests) and lists three high-level actions, but it lacks a 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for skill selection. It would benefit from more specific concrete actions and natural trigger terms that users might use when requesting this skill.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to run Playwright tests, debug e2e test failures, or verify browser test fixes.'

Include common keyword variations users might say, such as 'e2e tests', 'end-to-end tests', 'browser tests', 'test automation', or '.spec.ts files'.

Add more specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Run Playwright smoke tests, capture failure screenshots, analyze test error logs, retry flaky tests, and verify fixes against test assertions.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (Playwright smoke tests) and lists some actions (run, debug failures, verify fixes), but doesn't elaborate on specific concrete actions like 'capture screenshots', 'analyze error logs', or 'retry flaky tests'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes what the skill does (run Playwright smoke tests, debug failures, verify fixes) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also only moderately detailed, warranting a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes 'Playwright', 'smoke tests', 'debug failures', and 'verify fixes' which are relevant keywords, but misses common variations like 'e2e tests', 'end-to-end', 'browser tests', 'test automation', or 'playwright test' that users might naturally say.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Mentioning 'Playwright' specifically helps distinguish it from generic testing skills, but 'debug failures and verify fixes' is broad enough to overlap with general debugging or other test framework skills.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
cursor/plugins
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.