Name: lambdatest
Rating: 55.2 (1 reviews)
Author: membranedev

lambdatest

Lambdatest integration. Manage data, records, and automate workflows. Use when the user wants to interact with Lambdatest data.

Quality

62%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/lambdatest/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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.

The content is a well-structured, actionable Membrane CLI guide with strong connection-state handling and concrete commands throughout. Its main weaknesses are an unnecessary introductory concept explanation and the absence of post-run validation for action/proxy calls.

Suggestions

Remove or condense the opening "LambdaTest is a cloud-based testing platform..." paragraph, which explains a concept Claude already knows.

Either enumerate actual popular LambdaTest actions in the "Popular actions" section or remove the redundant discovery-command repetition.

Add a brief verification step after running actions or proxy requests (e.g. check the `output`/error fields and confirm the expected result before proceeding), which would also strengthen workflow_clarity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The opening paragraph ("LambdaTest is a cloud-based testing platform that allows users to perform cross-browser testing...") explains a concept Claude already knows, which the guidelines explicitly penalize. The remainder is reasonably efficient CLI reference, placing this at score 3 (mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation) rather than 4.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete copy-paste commands cover the common cases (install, login, connection ensure/get, action list/run, request) plus a flag table. Minor gaps remain: "Popular actions" repeats the discovery command without enumerating actual actions, and examples use placeholders like CONNECTION_ID and {"key": "value"}.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The connection workflow has an explicit state machine with a feedback loop (poll until READY, handle CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED, re-poll after user action, check error fields). This is a clear sequence with most checkpoints present; the minor gap is that running actions and proxy requests lack post-run verification, keeping it below 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-organized with clear section headers (Overview, Install, Authentication, Connecting, Searching, Running, Proxy, Best practices) and no nested or buried references. Since it exceeds 50 lines and has no external reference files to split into, it sits at score 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

57%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.

The description successfully includes an explicit Use-when trigger and names the product, but its capability list is generic ("manage data, records, automate workflows") rather than reflecting concrete LambdaTest testing actions. It is functional but underspecified for a testing-platform integration.

Suggestions

Replace generic verbs with concrete LambdaTest capabilities, e.g. "Run cross-browser test sessions, view test execution results, and manage projects and organizations."

Add natural trigger terms users actually say, such as "cross-browser testing", "test sessions", or "LambdaTest results", instead of the circular "interact with Lambdatest data".

Tighten the Use-when clause to reference the testing use case explicitly (e.g. "Use when the user wants to run or review cross-browser tests on LambdaTest").

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Phrases like "Manage data, records, and automate workflows" name the domain but the actions are generic and abstract rather than concrete Lambdatest capabilities (e.g. running test sessions, viewing cross-browser results). This matches the score-2 anchor of naming the domain with minimal/generic actions, falling short of score 3 which requires concrete actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	Both a "what" ("Manage data, records, and automate workflows") and an explicit "when" ("Use when the user wants to interact with Lambdatest data") are present. The explicit Use-when clause lifts it above 3, but the vague what and somewhat circular when keep it below 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The keyword "Lambdatest" and the trigger "when the user wants to interact with Lambdatest data" are relevant, but natural domain synonyms users would say ("cross-browser testing", "test sessions", "browser testing") are missing. This fits score 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4 which expects broader keyword coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Naming the specific product "Lambdatest" gives it a clear niche with low conflict risk, but the generic "manage data, records, automate workflows" wording creates minor overlap risk with other data-management skills. This matches score 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap) rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: membranedev/application-skills
Path: skills/lambdatest/SKILL.md
Commit: f484c82

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.