Content
82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A lean, highly actionable conventions document: executable examples, a decision table for assertion choice, and explicit error-recovery guidance for act warnings and failed browser interactions. The main gaps are minor — duplicated locator guidance, no inline write-run-verify sequence, and a sole external reference that is not part of the bundle.
Suggestions
Merge the duplicated locator guidance in 'Use locators for current DOM state' — 'Use an exact accessible name or scope the query to the intended region' and 'Prefer an exact accessible name or a scoped query over `.first()`' restate the same rule in consecutive paragraphs.
The only reference, ../../../contributor-docs/testing.md, lives outside the skill bundle and does not resolve; vendor the essential setup/commands into a references/ file (or inline the key commands) so the skill is self-contained.
Add a brief end-to-end sequence (write test → run in browser mode → verify) with the actual test command, instead of delegating all commands to the external testing guide.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense conventions with no basic-concept padding (e.g., "Prefer assertions on observable conditions over fixed sleeps" assumes competence throughout), but the locator section states the same rule twice in adjacent paragraphs ("Use an exact accessible name or scope the query to the intended region" then "Prefer an exact accessible name or a scoped query over `.first()`"), which could be merged. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready examples: a complete `it('calls onClick', ...)` test with imports, `act(() => { button.element().focus() })`, and a rerender/detach check, plus a decision table mapping contract to assertion and paired Avoid/Prefer polling snippets — the common cases are covered. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Situation-based guidance is unambiguous with explicit feedback loops ("When an act warning occurs, check that manual updates use RTL's `act`..."; "If a browser action unexpectedly fails... investigate its visibility, enabled state"), but there is no end-to-end write-run-verify sequence — running and verifying tests is delegated to the external testing guide. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-sectioned single file with one clearly signaled one-level reference ("Read [the testing guide](../../../contributor-docs/testing.md) for strategy, environment setup, and commands"), but no bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/) and that referenced path points outside the skill bundle and does not resolve, so the skill's one dependency is unverifiable. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |