rails-tdd-slices
Use when choosing the best first failing spec or vertical slice for a Ruby on Rails change. Covers request vs model vs service vs job vs engine spec selection, system spec escalation, smallest safe slice planning, and Rails-first TDD sequencing.
88
85%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
91%
1.49xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
85%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 in Rails TDD spec selection and vertical slice planning. It has an explicit 'Use when' clause and lists specific concrete capabilities. The main weakness is that it could include more natural user trigger terms like 'RSpec', 'what test to write first', or 'where should I start testing'.
Suggestions
Add natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'RSpec', 'what test to write first', 'where to start testing', or 'test-driven development'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: request vs model vs service vs job vs engine spec selection, system spec escalation, smallest safe slice planning, and Rails-first TDD sequencing. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('spec selection, system spec escalation, smallest safe slice planning, Rails-first TDD sequencing') and when ('Use when choosing the best first failing spec or vertical slice for a Ruby on Rails change') with an explicit 'Use when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant domain terms like 'Ruby on Rails', 'spec', 'TDD', 'vertical slice', and specific spec types (request, model, service, job, engine). However, it misses common natural user phrases like 'test', 'where to start testing', 'what test to write first', or 'RSpec'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining Rails-specific TDD methodology with first-spec selection strategy. The combination of 'first failing spec', 'vertical slice', and Rails-specific spec types makes it very unlikely to conflict with general testing or Rails skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides clear decision-making guidance for Rails TDD slice selection. Its main strengths are the actionable examples, clear workflow with validation checkpoints, and good integration points with related skills. The primary weakness is moderate redundancy across several tables and sections that cover overlapping ground, which could be tightened to save tokens.
Suggestions
Consolidate the Quick Reference table and Decision Heuristics table into a single table to reduce redundancy — the heuristics table already subsumes the quick reference.
Merge Common Mistakes and Red Flags into one section, as several items overlap (e.g., defaulting to wrong spec type appears in both).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and well-structured with tables that compress information well, but there's some redundancy — the Quick Reference table, Decision Heuristics table, and Rails Paths table overlap significantly. The Common Mistakes and Red Flags sections also partially duplicate each other. The HARD-GATE section restates what's already implied by the process. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable RSpec examples with realistic code, concrete spec path conventions, a clear decision table mapping change types to spec types, and a structured output format. The examples are copy-paste ready and demonstrate both good and bad approaches. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step process is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 6: confirm failure is for the right reason). The Test Feedback Checkpoint section adds a formal review gate before implementation, creating a proper feedback loop. The hand-off steps are explicit. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections progressing from quick reference to detailed process to examples. References to other skills (rspec-best-practices, rspec-service-testing, rails-engine-testing) are one level deep and clearly signaled in the Integration table. The skill stays focused on its scope without inlining content that belongs elsewhere. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.