qa-expert

This skill should be used when establishing comprehensive QA testing processes for any software project. Use when creating test strategies, writing test cases following Google Testing Standards, executing test plans, tracking bugs with P0-P4 classification, calculating quality metrics, or generating progress reports. Includes autonomous execution capability via master prompts and complete documentation templates for third-party QA team handoffs. Implements OWASP security testing and achieves 90% coverage targets.

1.51x

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.51x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./qa-expert/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

35%

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

This skill attempts comprehensive QA process coverage but suffers from significant verbosity and redundancy—autonomous execution is described three times, initialization appears twice, and many sections explain concepts Claude already knows (severity levels, AAA pattern basics). The actionability is moderate with some concrete commands but lacks executable code examples for key tasks like test case writing. The structure references external files well but keeps too much detail inline.

Suggestions

Eliminate redundancy: merge Quick Start and Core Capabilities §1 (identical content), consolidate the three autonomous execution sections into one, and remove the 'When to Use' section which lists triggers Claude can infer from context.

Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows—severity classification definitions (P0-P4), what AAA pattern means, what OWASP categories are—or move them to reference files.

Add executable code examples for key tasks: show a complete test case example inline rather than just pointing to a template, and show sample CSV row entries for tracking and bug filing.

Add explicit validation/error-recovery steps to workflows: what to do when quality gates fail, how to handle init script errors, and how to verify CSV integrity after batch updates.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is extremely verbose at ~250+ lines, with significant redundancy (Quick Start and Core Capabilities §1 repeat the same init command; autonomous execution is explained three separate times; the 'When to Use' section lists things Claude can infer). It also explains basic concepts like bug severity levels and AAA patterns that Claude already knows.	1 / 3
Actionability	It provides some concrete commands (init script, metrics script) and references to templates, but most guidance is procedural description rather than executable code. The test case writing section gives format conventions but no actual executable example. The 'Common Patterns' are numbered lists of steps rather than copy-paste-ready commands.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step workflows are listed (e.g., manual execution has 4 steps, common patterns have numbered sequences) and the Ground Truth Principle is a good validation concept. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery feedback loops in the workflows—e.g., what happens if init_qa_project.py fails, or if metrics calculation reveals gate failures? The quality gates table defines targets but doesn't describe what to do when they fail.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references multiple external files (references/, assets/, scripts/) with clear one-level-deep navigation, which is good structure. However, since no bundle files are provided, we cannot verify these references exist. Additionally, the main SKILL.md itself contains too much inline content that could be offloaded—the full quality gates table, severity classification details, OWASP coverage list, and project sizing guidelines all bloat the overview when they could be in reference files.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a strong skill description that clearly articulates specific capabilities, includes natural trigger terms, explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, and occupies a distinct niche. The description is comprehensive without being excessively verbose, covering concrete actions like bug tracking with P0-P4 classification, OWASP security testing, and documentation templates for handoffs. Minor concern is the '90% coverage targets' claim which borders on an over-claim, but overall the description is well-crafted.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: creating test strategies, writing test cases, executing test plans, tracking bugs with P0-P4 classification, calculating quality metrics, generating progress reports, OWASP security testing, and documentation templates for handoffs.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (creating test strategies, writing test cases, tracking bugs, calculating metrics, generating reports, documentation templates) and 'when' ('Use when creating test strategies, writing test cases following Google Testing Standards, executing test plans, tracking bugs...'). The 'Use when' clause is explicit.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'QA testing', 'test strategies', 'test cases', 'test plans', 'bugs', 'quality metrics', 'progress reports', 'security testing', 'coverage targets'. These cover a good range of terms a user seeking QA help would naturally use.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clearly occupies a distinct niche around QA testing processes with specific differentiators like Google Testing Standards, P0-P4 bug classification, OWASP security testing, master prompts for autonomous execution, and third-party QA team handoff templates. Unlikely to conflict with general coding or documentation skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: fernandezbaptiste/claude-code-skills
Commit: 4f0eae8

Reviewed: 4 months 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.