oma-qa

Quality assurance specialist for security, performance, accessibility, comprehensive testing, and quality standard alignment. Use for test, review, security audit, OWASP, coverage, lint work, and ISO/IEC 25010 or ISO/IEC 29119-aligned QA recommendations.

Quality

80%

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 ./.agents/skills/oma-qa/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%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 is a well-structured, actionable QA workflow with clear sequencing and validation, but it carries redundant templated scaffolding and references several resources/ and ../_shared/ files that are not present in the bundle.

Suggestions

Add the referenced resource files (resources/execution-protocol.md, resources/iso-quality.md, resources/checklist.md, resources/error-playbook.md, resources/verify-ship-protocol.md) or remove the dangling references so progressive disclosure reflects the actual bundle.

Collapse the redundant scaffolding (SSL-primitive, Resource-scope, Control-flow features sections overlap the Scenes/Transitions/Guardrails content) to reduce tokens and lift conciseness.

Add a concrete example finding entry (severity, file:line, evidence, remediation code) so the report format is copy-paste ready and actionability reaches 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The templated scaffolding (SSL-primitive table, Resource-scope table, Control-flow features) and overlapping sections (Guardrails restating Scenes/Transitions; Dependencies overlapping Tools and instruments) add padding that could be tightened, though the body mostly assumes Claude's competence.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete commands ('npm audit', 'bandit -r .', 'lighthouse <url>'), an explicit severity rubric, priority ordering, and a file:line + fix requirement — mostly executable guidance, but lacks a copy-paste finding-report template or example output to reach 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced PREPARE → ACQUIRE → REASON → VERIFY → FINALIZE flow with explicit validation ('VERIFY: Reproduce findings and reject false positives', 'If a finding cannot be reproduced, do not report it') and a dedicated failure-and-recovery feedback loop.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a well-organized overview with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (resources/execution-protocol.md, resources/iso-quality.md, resources/checklist.md, etc.), but none of the referenced files actually exist in the bundle, which is a real organization gap that caps the score.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

90%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.

The description is strong: it clearly states the QA specialization, includes an explicit 'Use for' trigger clause, and covers natural terms plus standards acronyms. The only weak spot is specificity, which enumerates concern areas rather than discrete concrete actions.

Suggestions

Reword the capability list as concrete actions (e.g., 'Audits code for OWASP Top 10 issues, runs coverage and lint checks, analyzes performance and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance') to lift specificity from category-enumeration to discrete actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the QA domain and enumerates several concrete areas ('security, performance, accessibility, comprehensive testing, and quality standard alignment') but lists concern categories rather than discrete executable actions, so it falls short of the 'several specific actions' anchor at 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Quality assurance specialist for...') and 'when' ('Use for test, review, security audit, OWASP, coverage, lint work...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive natural trigger coverage ('test, review, security audit, OWASP, coverage, lint work, and ISO/IEC 25010 or ISO/IEC 29119-aligned QA recommendations') with both common phrasings and standards acronyms a user would actually say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear QA niche anchored by specific standards (OWASP, ISO/IEC 25010, ISO/IEC 29119, WCAG) gives it distinct triggers with minimal overlap risk against generic code agents.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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: first-fluke/oh-my-agent
Path: .agents/skills/oma-qa/SKILL.md
Commit: 032c988

Reviewed: 2 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.