Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and highly actionable with concrete commands and a clear sequential workflow, lightly held back by implicit rather than explicit test-failure feedback loops. Structure and disclosure are appropriate for a short, single-purpose skill.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validate-fix-rerun checkpoint in the workflow, e.g. after running the focused spec: if it fails, fix the test or code and re-run before expanding scope.
Make the final verification step a concrete command sequence rather than only a reporting instruction, so the feedback loop is executable rather than implied.
Clarify what 'relevant repository checks' in the final step concretely means (e.g. run the full affected suite command) to remove ambiguity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with no explanation of what Vitest or Testing Library is; every line earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready executable commands ("vp test run path/to/spec-or-directory", "vp test run --project unit src/path/to/spec", "vp test --project storybook --run") scoped to the owning workspace. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence with a final reporting checkpoint exists, but validation/feedback loops are implicit ("run the focused spec before expanding scope") rather than an explicit validate-then-fix-then-rerun cycle; it sits above the 1-anchor's missing sequence but below the 3-anchor's explicit validation steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with a single one-level-deep reference (web/docs/test.md) and well-organized sections, it meets the simple-skill allowance for a top score without needing external bundle files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |