load-testing-apis
Execute comprehensive load and stress testing to validate API performance and scalability. Use when validating API performance under load. Trigger with phrases like "load test the API", "stress test API", or "benchmark API performance".
68
62%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/api-development/api-load-tester/skills/load-testing-apis/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 solid skill description with explicit trigger guidance and a clear 'Use when' clause. Its main weakness is that the capability description is somewhat high-level—it could benefit from listing more specific concrete actions (e.g., simulating concurrent users, measuring latency/throughput, generating performance reports). The trigger terms are well-chosen and naturally match what users would say.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions such as 'simulate concurrent users, measure response times and throughput, identify performance bottlenecks, generate load test reports' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (load/stress testing, API performance) and mentions some actions ('load and stress testing', 'validate API performance and scalability'), but doesn't list multiple concrete specific actions like generating reports, simulating concurrent users, measuring response times, or identifying bottlenecks. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (execute comprehensive load and stress testing to validate API performance and scalability) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause and 'Trigger with phrases like' providing concrete trigger guidance). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'load test the API', 'stress test API', 'benchmark API performance', 'load', 'scalability', 'performance'. These are phrases users would naturally say when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'load test', 'stress test', and 'benchmark API performance' creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills like general API testing, unit testing, or monitoring skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides a well-organized high-level framework for load testing but critically lacks executable code examples — no k6 scripts, no Artillery configs, no CLI commands — making it more of a conceptual guide than an actionable skill. The workflow is logically sequenced but missing validation checkpoints and feedback loops. References to bundle files that don't exist undermine the progressive disclosure structure.
Suggestions
Add at least one complete, executable k6 test script example showing ramp-up stages, threshold assertions, and request distribution — this is the most critical gap.
Include concrete CLI commands for running tests (e.g., `k6 run --vus 100 --duration 10m script.js`) so Claude can copy-paste rather than infer.
Add explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow: e.g., 'After baseline test, verify results are within SLO thresholds before proceeding to 2x load. If baseline fails, stop and investigate.'
Either provide the referenced bundle files (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) or inline the most critical content — dead references reduce trust in the skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity — the overview restates what the description already covers, the prerequisites list monitoring stacks Claude would know about, and the examples section describes scenarios in prose rather than showing executable code. Some tightening is possible. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Despite listing 9 steps, the skill provides zero executable code — no k6 script, no Artillery config, no command-line invocations. It describes what to do at a high level ('Generate k6 or Artillery test scripts') without showing how. This is abstract guidance, not concrete executable instruction. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 9-step workflow is sequenced logically with a clear progression from reading specs to generating reports. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops — step 7 says to increase load but doesn't specify what to check before escalating, and there's no 'if results fail thresholds, adjust and re-run' loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) with clear paths, which is good structure. However, no bundle files are provided, so these references are dead links. The main file itself is somewhat long with inline content (error table, examples) that could be in referenced files, creating an inconsistent split. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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
3a2d27d
- 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.