CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-test-failures

Analyze dotnet/maui PR failures across maui-pr, maui-pr-devicetests, and maui-pr-uitests against the latest five completed runs on the PR's target branch. Report only whether failures are PR-related, with failure links grouped by pipeline. When no current results exist, skip evaluation and request /azp run.

62

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/review-test-failures/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

An exceptionally actionable, well-sequenced procedural skill body: exact data fields, a rigorous attribution rubric, and a complete output template with validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops. Its main weaknesses are noticeable rule repetition across sections and a bundle whose other scripts are never referenced from the body.

Suggestions

Consolidate the no-results vs collection-failure rules into one canonical passage (e.g., within 'Check for results first') and reference it from the reporting sections instead of restating it.

Briefly mention the other bundle scripts (Merge-TestVisualsIntoComment.ps1, Publish-TestVisualAssets.ps1) or their purpose so the scripts/ directory is fully navigable from the body.

Consider moving the verbatim comment template or the detailed five-run comparison caveats into a reference file to reduce SKILL.md token load.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every sentence carries a substantive rule with no concept-explanation padding, but the no-results-vs-collection-failure distinction is restated three-plus times across sections ("Results missing from the bundle are not proof that CI has no results", "do not say No results available or request /azp run for a collection failure", "Never treat missing current results as passing"), and layout rules are repeated — more than the minor trimming of a 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact context field names (pr.headRefOid, pr.baseRefName, scope.diff, builds, failures), a four-row attribution table with required evidence, exact Shields badge URLs with labelColor=30363d, emoji HTML entities, and a complete copy-paste comment template covering the common cases including the no-results shortcut.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced workflow (check results first → read evidence → compare latest five target-branch runs → classify → produce comment) with explicit validation steps ("Verify current builds belong to the captured PR head", "require complete results for expected Helix work items") and feedback loops for error recovery (stop and ask to restore access and rerun /review tests).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with well-signaled one-level-deep references: scripts/Gather-TestFailureContext.ps1 resolves to a real bundle file with its role stated, and the MAUI CI facts reference is section-signaled. Minor gaps: the body never references the other three bundle scripts (Merge-TestVisualsIntoComment, Publish-TestVisualAssets), and the long inline output template plus comparison rules could partially live in references.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

67%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 highly specific, distinctive description that clearly states what the skill does, including pipeline names, the comparison window, and fallback behavior. Its weaknesses are the absence of an explicit "Use when..." invocation trigger and missing natural trigger terms ("test failures", "CI failures") that users would say when needing this skill.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when reviewing test/CI failures on a dotnet/maui PR' clause so the invocation trigger is stated rather than implied.

Include natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'test failures', 'CI failures', or 'flaky tests', alongside the pipeline codenames.

Keep the concrete pipeline names and /azp run fallback while trimming jargon like 'skip evaluation' that describes internal behavior rather than user-facing capability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions (analyze failures across three named pipelines, report PR-related attribution with links grouped by pipeline, skip evaluation and request /azp run when no results exist) with comprehensive coverage of inputs, outputs, and fallback behavior.

5 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear and concrete, but the only "when" clause ("When no current results exist") describes runtime behavior, not skill invocation; no "Use when..." trigger guidance exists, which caps this dimension at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant keywords like "PR failures", "target branch", and "PR-related", but the natural phrases a user would actually say for this task — "test failures", "CI failures", "flaky tests" — are absent, with jargon ("evaluation", "/azp run", pipeline codenames) dominating.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Pins a clear niche (dotnet/maui PR failure analysis across three specifically named pipelines) with distinct triggers and virtually no overlap risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

dotnet/maui

Path

.github/skills/review-test-failures/SKILL.md

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.