testing-workflow

Comprehensive testing workflow orchestrating functional testing, example validation, integration testing, and usability assessment. Sequential workflow for complete skill testing from examples through scenarios to integration validation. Use when conducting thorough testing, pre-deployment validation, ensuring skill functionality, or comprehensive quality checks.

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 ./skills/testing-workflow/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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.

The body presents a clearly sequenced four-step testing workflow with time estimates and pass criteria, but it repeats the step list three times and stops short of executable guidance — it never says how to invoke the component skills or run the tests. Tightening the redundancy and adding concrete commands would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Collapse the triple repetition of the four steps: keep the step-by-step section with times and pass criteria, and reduce the Overview and Quick Reference table to a single compact summary.

Add concrete invocation guidance for the component skills, e.g. the actual command or operation syntax used to run skill-tester's example-validation operation and skill-validator's checks.

Specify how examples are extracted and executed in Step 1 (e.g., where examples live, how to run each one, and how to record pass/fail per example) so the guidance is executable rather than directional.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The four workflow steps are restated three times (Overview list, Testing Workflow section, Quick Reference table) with overlapping time and pass-criteria information, so the body is mostly efficient but includes redundant sections that could be tightened — anchor 3.	3 / 5
Actionability	Steps name component skills and quantities ('2-3 realistic scenarios', 'Run skill-validator'), which is more than minimal, but there is no executable detail: no commands or invocation syntax for skill-tester/skill-validator and no method for how to extract and execute examples — matching anchor 3's 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 1-4 sequence is clear with per-step pass criteria, an explicit final validation step (Step 4), and a binary result ('TESTS PASS or TESTS FAIL with issues to fix'), but there is no feedback loop describing what to do when a step fails — anchor 4 rather than anchor 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well organized (Overview, When to Use, Workflow, Quick Reference) and the skill is self-contained with no external references needed, but the duplication between the Overview and the Quick Reference table is a minor organization gap — anchor 4.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 description with an explicit what-and-when structure and concrete trigger phrases. Its weaknesses are buzzword padding in the opening and slightly formal trigger terms that miss colloquial variations.

Suggestions

Drop buzzword padding like 'Comprehensive' and 'orchestrating' in favor of leading with the concrete testing activities.

Add more colloquial trigger variations such as 'run tests on a skill', 'test the examples', or 'verify a skill works' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several concrete testing activities ('functional testing, example validation, integration testing, and usability assessment'), but the lead-in 'Comprehensive testing workflow orchestrating' is buzzword padding and coverage has minor gaps, matching anchor 4 rather than the fully comprehensive anchor 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (orchestrates functional testing, example validation, integration testing, usability assessment) and 'when' ('Use when conducting thorough testing, pre-deployment validation, ensuring skill functionality, or comprehensive quality checks') with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The 'when' clause supplies good natural phrases ('conducting thorough testing, pre-deployment validation, ensuring skill functionality, comprehensive quality checks') but misses simpler variations users would say, such as 'run tests', 'test the examples', or 'verify a skill', fitting anchor 4.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The skill-QA niche ('complete skill testing', pre-deployment skill validation) is mostly distinct, but generic phrases like 'comprehensive quality checks' create minor overlap risk with general code-testing skills, fitting anchor 4 rather than the clear-niche anchor 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz
Path: skills/testing-workflow/SKILL.md
Commit: 93ed392

Reviewed: 14 hours 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.