CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

qa-performance-resilience

Measure Core Web Vitals, API latency, slow-network and offline behavior, failure recovery, memory growth, and approved load. Use for performance, reliability, or resilience testing.

68

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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.

A lean, well-structured procedure with unusually concrete targets and safety gating, but the steps stop short of executable guidance — no commands or scripts to actually run Lighthouse, k6, or HAR analysis. Adding the handful of missing commands would lift actionability without costing conciseness.

Suggestions

Add the actual commands for the key steps, e.g. the Lighthouse mobile-profile invocation, a minimal k6 ramp script, and how to capture/analyze the HAR, so each step is executable as written.

Define "the manifest's limits" (which manifest, where to find it, what the numeric limits are) since step 6 depends on it for approval compliance.

Specify how memory growth is measured in step 4 (tool or DevTools protocol) and add a feedback loop for breached thresholds (e.g., record the regression and file it against the exit criteria table).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every line carries a new instruction with concrete numbers ("LCP ≤ 2.5s, INP ≤ 200ms, CLS ≤ 0.1", "Fast 3G", "30 minutes") and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — nothing to trim, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Tools and parameters are named (Lighthouse, web-vitals, k6, HAR, Fast 3G) but no step is executable as written — no Lighthouse/k6 commands, no method for capturing HAR or measuring memory growth, and "the manifest's limits" is undefined — fitting the some-concrete-guidance-but-incomplete anchor; it is above 2 because specific tools and thresholds are given, below 4 because an executor must invent the actual commands.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered 7-step sequence with safety gates ("approved only", "(staging)") and an explicit exit-criteria checkpoint matches the clear-sequence/most-checkpoints anchor; it misses 5 because there are no per-step validation results or feedback loops (e.g., what to do when a p75 threshold is breached).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into clean Procedure and Exit criteria sections, which the rubric's simple-skill guideline scores at 5; nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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: concrete capability list plus an explicit multi-domain "Use for" trigger clause, written in third person with no padding. The only gaps are a few missing natural trigger synonyms (load/stress testing) that slightly increase overlap risk with adjacent skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists six concrete measurement actions ("Core Web Vitals, API latency, slow-network and offline behavior, failure recovery, memory growth, and approved load"), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor; coverage gaps are negligible, so it does not fall to 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the what is the enumerated measurement list, and the when is "Use for performance, reliability, or resilience testing" with three concrete trigger domains, mirroring the anchor-5 structure; the when-clause is explicit rather than weakly implied, so it does not cap at 4.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "performance, reliability, or resilience testing" and "Core Web Vitals" / "API latency" are present, but common variations users would say — "load testing", "stress testing", "soak testing" — are missing, fitting the good-but-incomplete anchor rather than the comprehensive one.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The web performance/resilience QA niche is mostly distinct, but broad single-word triggers like "performance" could overlap with a general profiling or load-testing skill, matching the minor-overlap anchor rather than the minimal-conflict one.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

itsablabla/qa-bug-agent-skills

Path

skills/qa-performance-resilience/SKILL.md

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.