rails-engine-testing
Use when creating or improving RSpec test coverage for Rails engines. Covers dummy app setup, request, routing, generator, and configuration specs for proving engine behavior within a host application.
82
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
91%
1.49xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./rails-engine-testing/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
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 description that clearly defines its niche (RSpec testing for Rails engines), lists specific concrete actions, includes natural trigger terms, and explicitly states both what it does and when to use it. The description is concise, uses third-person voice appropriately, and would be easily distinguishable from other testing or Rails-related skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'dummy app setup, request, routing, generator, and configuration specs' — these are distinct, concrete testing activities within the Rails engine domain. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what ('dummy app setup, request, routing, generator, and configuration specs for proving engine behavior') and when ('Use when creating or improving RSpec test coverage for Rails engines'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'RSpec', 'test coverage', 'Rails engines', 'dummy app', 'request specs', 'routing specs', 'generator specs', 'configuration specs', 'host application'. These are terms a developer would naturally use when seeking help with engine testing. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive — the combination of 'RSpec', 'Rails engines', 'dummy app setup', and specific spec types (routing, generator, configuration) creates a very clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general testing or general Rails skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a solid conceptual framework for Rails engine testing with good coverage of what to test and some executable examples. Its main weaknesses are redundancy across several overlapping sections (mistakes, red flags, gaps, checklist) and incomplete actionability—key spec types like generator and reload-safety specs are emphasized but lack concrete code examples. Tightening the overlapping sections and adding executable examples for all mentioned spec types would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add executable code examples for generator specs and reload-safety specs, since these are highlighted as important but have no concrete implementation guidance.
Consolidate 'Common Mistakes', 'Red Flags', 'Common Gaps To Fix', and 'Review Checklist' into a single section or two complementary sections to reduce redundancy.
Add a validation step in the Testing Order workflow, e.g., 'Run the dummy app boot spec and confirm it passes before adding further coverage.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy—'Common Mistakes', 'Red Flags', 'Common Gaps To Fix', and 'Review Checklist' overlap significantly in content. The tables explaining what a request spec or routing spec does are somewhat redundant for Claude. Could be tightened by ~30%. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The two code examples (request spec and configuration spec) are executable and concrete, which is good. However, several promised spec types (routing, generator, reload-safety) lack any code examples. Generator specs and reload-safety specs are emphasized as important but have no executable guidance, leaving Claude to figure out the implementation. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Testing Order' section provides a clear sequence, and the 'Output Style' section gives a workflow for responding. However, there are no validation checkpoints—no guidance on how to verify the dummy app is correctly set up, no feedback loops for when specs fail, and no explicit 'run and verify' steps between stages. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The Integration table at the bottom references related skills, which is good. However, the content is somewhat monolithic—multiple overlapping sections (Common Mistakes, Red Flags, Common Gaps, Review Checklist) could be consolidated or split into a separate reference file. The structure is present but not optimally organized for navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- igmarin/rails-agent-skills
- Commit
ae8ea63
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.