test

Use when you need to run tests for React core. Supports source, www, stable, and experimental channels.

2.85x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

2.85x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

87%

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

A tight, highly actionable test-running skill with copy-paste commands and clean section organization. Its only gap is the absence of an explicit validation/retry checkpoint in the workflow for what is a batch test operation.

Suggestions

Add an explicit feedback loop after running tests (e.g., re-run only failures, interpret skipped tests via the @gate pragma) to satisfy the batch-operation validation requirement and lift workflow clarity to 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — usage examples, a channel map, a command map, hard rules, and common mistakes all earn their place with no concept-explanation padding.	3 / 3
Actionability	Concrete, copy-paste-ready yarn commands are mapped per channel (e.g., `yarn test --silent --no-watchman <pattern>`) alongside exact slash-command usage examples.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The three-step sequence (parse channel → map to yarn command → report results) is clear, but a batch test run lacks an explicit validation/retry checkpoint, capping workflow clarity at 2 per the batch-operations rule.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	A short, single-purpose skill with well-organized sections and no bundle files; per the simple-skills note this qualifies for a 3 on clear organization alone.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

75%

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 concise, well-triggered description that covers both capability and use-conditions, anchored to a clear React-core niche. Its main weakness is the second-person voice and channel-jargon emphasis, which slightly weakens specificity and trigger-term naturalness.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g., "Runs tests for the React core codebase") to avoid the second-person voice penalty on specificity.

Add common user-facing trigger terms such as "unit tests" or "jest" alongside the channel names to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"run tests for React core" and "Supports source, www, stable, and experimental channels" name a concrete domain and specific channels, but the second-person "you need to run tests" voice triggers a -1 penalty per the rubric.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states both what it does ("run tests for React core", supported channels) and an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, satisfying both the what and the when.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"Use when you need to run tests" is a natural trigger, but the bulk of the description is channel jargon (source/www/stable/experimental) and omits common user phrasings like "unit tests" or "jest".	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoping to "React core" with distinct channel triggers carves a clear niche unlikely to fire for non-React testing skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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: facebook/react
Commit: e71a639

Reviewed: 4 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.