integration-test-generator
Integration Test Generator - Auto-activating skill for API Integration. Triggers on: integration test generator, integration test generator Part of the API Integration skill category.
34
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
90%
1.02xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/16-api-integration/integration-test-generator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%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 description is essentially a template placeholder with no substantive content. It names the skill category but fails to describe any concrete actions, lacks natural trigger terms users would actually say, and provides no meaningful guidance on when Claude should select this skill. It reads like auto-generated boilerplate rather than a crafted description.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates integration tests for REST API endpoints, creates mock server configurations, validates request/response schemas, and tests authentication flows.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to write integration tests, test API endpoints, create API test suites, mock HTTP requests, or verify API contracts.'
Include natural keyword variations users would actually say, such as 'API tests', 'endpoint testing', 'test suite', 'HTTP mocking', 'REST testing', '.test.ts', 'test coverage for APIs'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('Integration Test Generator' and 'API Integration') but describes no concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed like 'generates test cases', 'mocks API endpoints', or 'validates response schemas'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' beyond the name itself, and the 'when' clause is essentially just restating the skill name as a trigger rather than providing meaningful usage guidance. There is no explicit 'Use when...' clause with real trigger scenarios. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just 'integration test generator' repeated twice. There are no natural keyword variations a user might say, such as 'API tests', 'test endpoints', 'integration testing', 'test suite', or 'mock API'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'API Integration' and 'Integration Test Generator' provides some specificity to a niche, but the lack of concrete details means it could overlap with general testing skills, unit test generators, or other API-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a hollow template with no actual instructional content. It repeatedly references 'integration test generator' without ever defining what that means, how to do it, or providing any code, commands, frameworks, or concrete guidance. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples showing how to write integration tests (e.g., using pytest with requests, or a specific testing framework) against real API patterns like REST endpoints or webhooks.
Define a clear multi-step workflow: e.g., 1) identify API endpoints to test, 2) set up test fixtures/mocks, 3) write test cases, 4) validate responses, 5) run and verify—with explicit validation checkpoints.
Remove all meta-description sections ('When to Use', 'Example Triggers', 'Capabilities') that describe the skill rather than teaching the task, and replace them with actionable technical content.
Include specific tool/library recommendations (e.g., pytest, httpx, wiremock, testcontainers) with executable examples covering common integration test scenarios like OAuth flows, webhook verification, and error handling.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and meta-description. It explains what the skill does in abstract terms without providing any actual technical content. Every section restates the same vague idea ('integration test generator') without adding substance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code, no commands, no specific examples, no API patterns, no test frameworks mentioned. The content only describes rather than instructs, offering nothing executable or copy-paste ready. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains none. There are no validation checkpoints or sequenced instructions of any kind. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, repetitive document with no meaningful structure. There are no references to detailed files, no layered content organization, and the sections are superficial headers over vacuous bullet points. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
4dee593
- 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.