write-xaml-tests

Creates XAML unit tests for GitHub issues in the Controls.Xaml.UnitTests project. Tests XAML parsing, compilation (XamlC), and source generation. Use when testing XAML-specific behavior, not UI interactions.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/write-xaml-tests/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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 well-structured, actionable workflow body with concrete build/test commands, clear scoping checklists, and a defined output format. It falls short of top marks mainly because the central test-authoring conventions are delegated to an external file with no in-bundle reference or fallback example, and no error-recovery guidance accompanies the verification steps.

Suggestions

Inline one minimal, complete test example (a MauiXXXXX.xaml.cs using [Values] XamlInflator and MockCompiler) so the skill remains actionable even if the external instructions file is unavailable, or add the conventions file to a references/ bundle with a clearly signaled link.

Add a short error-recovery step after the build/run commands (e.g., 'If the build fails, re-check naming and namespace conventions from Step 1 and rebuild') to close the feedback loop in the workflow.

Remove the opening sentence that duplicates the frontmatter description, and trim the Step 1 bullet list to only what is needed to decide whether to open the instructions file.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes competence (checklists, commands, output template), but the opening sentence repeats the frontmatter description and Step 1's conventions bullet list partially duplicates the referenced instructions file. Not 5 due to this redundancy; not 3 since there is no concept re-teaching or padding.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable commands with full paths ("dotnet build src/Controls/tests/Xaml.UnitTests/Controls.Xaml.UnitTests.csproj -c Debug --no-restore -v q", "dotnet test ... --filter \"FullyQualifiedName~MauiXXXXX\"") are provided, but the core test-authoring patterns ("[Values] XamlInflator", "MockCompiler", "MockSourceGenerator") are only named and delegated to an external repo file rather than shown. Not 5 because of this gap; not 3 since what is given is executable rather than pseudocode.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence (read guidelines → create files → build and run → verify behavior) with explicit build/run checkpoints and expected pass/fail semantics in Step 4. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery loop (e.g., what to do when the build or test run fails); not 3 since validation checkpoints are explicit rather than missing. This is not a destructive or batch operation, so the workflow cap does not apply.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-sectioned ~80-line body with a clearly labeled References section pointing one level deep (".github/instructions/xaml-unittests.instructions.md", test project, existing issues). Not 5 because the skill exceeds 50 lines and its key detail lives in a repo-relative file outside the skill bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files exist); not 3 since references are clearly signaled and content is well organized.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 with concrete actions, an explicit use-when clause, and effective negative scoping against the UI-tests skill. Its main gaps are thin trigger-phrase coverage and minor specificity gaps versus the XAML cases the body itself enumerates.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Creates XAML unit tests" and "Tests XAML parsing, compilation (XamlC), and source generation" list several concrete actions covering the domain, but the XAML bug cases named in the body (bindings, markup extensions, x:Name) are absent from the description — minor gaps rather than comprehensive coverage.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both "what" (creates XAML unit tests; tests parsing, XamlC, source generation) and "when" ("Use when testing XAML-specific behavior, not UI interactions") are present, but the "when" is a single broad trigger without more concrete phrases. Not 3, since the "when" is explicit rather than merely implied; not 5, since the trigger guidance could be more specific.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like "XAML", "XamlC", "source generation", "unit tests", and "GitHub issues" give good keyword coverage, but common variations users might say (e.g., "XAML bug", "XAML error", file extensions) are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"for GitHub issues in the Controls.Xaml.UnitTests project" and the explicit negative scope "not UI interactions" establish a clear niche and actively disambiguate from sibling UI-testing skills — minimal conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: dotnet/maui
Path: .github/skills/write-xaml-tests/SKILL.md
Commit: 7a5a5d6

Reviewed: 7 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.