property-based-test-helper
Property Based Test Helper - Auto-activating skill for Test Automation. Triggers on: property based test helper, property based test helper Part of the Test Automation skill category.
36
Quality
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.00xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/09-test-automation/property-based-test-helper/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 severely underdeveloped, consisting only of the skill name, a redundant trigger phrase, and a category label. It provides no information about what the skill actually does (e.g., generating property-based tests, finding counterexamples, working with specific frameworks) and offers no meaningful guidance for when Claude should select it.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, such as 'Generates property-based tests using invariants, creates generators for custom types, identifies counterexamples, and integrates with frameworks like Hypothesis or QuickCheck'.
Replace the redundant trigger terms with natural variations users would say: 'property testing', 'generative tests', 'QuickCheck', 'Hypothesis', 'fuzz testing', 'invariant testing', 'shrinking test cases'.
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause describing scenarios: 'Use when the user wants to test code with randomized inputs, verify invariants, find edge cases automatically, or mentions property-based testing frameworks'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Property Based Test Helper') without describing any concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed like 'generates test cases', 'identifies edge cases', or 'creates property assertions'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' beyond the name, and the 'when' clause is just a redundant repetition of the skill name rather than meaningful trigger guidance. Both components are essentially missing. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just the skill name repeated twice ('property based test helper, property based test helper'). Missing natural variations users would say like 'property testing', 'QuickCheck', 'hypothesis tests', 'generative testing', or 'fuzz testing'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'property based test' is somewhat specific to a testing paradigm, which provides some distinctiveness. However, without concrete actions, it could overlap with general testing skills or unit test helpers. | 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 an empty template with no actual content. It describes what a property-based testing skill might do but provides zero actionable guidance, no code examples, no library recommendations (like Hypothesis for Python or fast-check for JS), and no explanation of property-based testing concepts or patterns. It fails every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples showing property-based testing with a specific library (e.g., Hypothesis for Python: `@given(st.integers()) def test_addition_commutative(x, y): assert x + y == y + x`)
Include specific guidance on writing good properties: invariants, round-trip properties, oracle comparisons, with concrete examples for each
Provide a clear workflow: 1) Identify properties to test, 2) Define generators/strategies, 3) Write property test, 4) Run and interpret shrunk counterexamples
Remove all meta-description boilerplate ('Provides step-by-step guidance', 'Follows best practices') and replace with actual instructions
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with generic boilerplate that explains nothing Claude doesn't already know. Phrases like 'Provides step-by-step guidance' and 'Follows industry best practices' are meaningless filler without actual content. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance, no code examples, no specific commands, and no actual instructions for property-based testing. The skill describes what it could do rather than providing executable guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. There are no steps, no sequence, and no validation checkpoints. The content is entirely meta-description without any actual process to follow. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of placeholder text with no structure pointing to detailed materials. There are no references to examples, API docs, or advanced topics—just empty promises of capabilities. | 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
f17dd51
- 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.