testing

Write and maintain tests with Rstest dual projects, mock utilities, and Zustand store testing patterns.

Quality

74%

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 ./frontend/.claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

82%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 concise, well-structured, and actionable, with a strong quick-reference table and copy-paste commands. Its main gaps are deferring core testing patterns to referenced files (some not bundled) and lacking an explicit run-then-verify feedback loop.

Suggestions

Add a brief run-then-verify feedback loop (e.g., run tests → read failure → fix → re-run) to strengthen workflow clarity.

Include one short inline mock or Zustand-store example so the skill is actionable even before opening the referenced rule files.

Ensure referenced rule files (test-mock-patterns.md, test-zustand-stores.md, etc.) are bundled under references/ or rules/ so the progressive-disclosure structure resolves.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean — a quick-reference table, a copy-paste command block, and tight key points — with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place and it assumes competence. Not below 5 because there is no padding to trim.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste commands ("bun run test:unit"), concrete file paths ("test-utils/test-utils.tsx"), and file-type rules (".test.ts = unit"). Not 5 because the mock and Zustand patterns themselves are deferred to referenced files rather than shown as inline executable examples; not 3 because substantial concrete executable guidance is present.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A Quick Reference decision table maps actions to rule files and Key Points give a clear writing flow (pick type by extension, use test-utils, verify wiring). Not 5 because there is no explicit run-then-verify feedback loop; not 3 because the decision flow and guidance are clear with only mild checkpoint gaps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview that signals one-level-deep references via an action→file table (test-unit-vs-integration.md, test-mock-patterns.md, etc.) plus a "NOT for" boundary and a rules/ pointer. Not 5 because the referenced bundle files are not present alongside the skill to confirm the structure; not 3 because references are clearly signaled and shallow.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 is specific and well-targeted to a particular test stack, naming concrete tools and actions. Its main weakness is the missing "Use when..." trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when..." clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g., "Use when writing or debugging .test.ts/.test.tsx files, setting up mocks, or configuring Rstest projects").

Include common trigger variations like "unit tests", "integration tests", and file extensions (.test.ts, .test.tsx) to improve trigger-term coverage.

Clarify the "when" so the description stands alone without relying on the body's Activation Conditions section.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes "Write and maintain tests", "mock utilities", and "Zustand store testing patterns" — several specific concrete actions/sub-areas named. Not 5 because the listing is a terse enumeration of sub-areas rather than comprehensive action coverage; not 3 because it clearly lists multiple specific actions beyond a single one.	4 / 5
Completeness	A clear "what" is present (write/maintain tests with Rstest, mocks, Zustand) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline. Not 4 because the "when" is entirely absent rather than weakly present.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural keywords "tests", "mock utilities", plus tool names "Rstest" and "Zustand" users would say. Not 5 because common variations like "unit tests", "integration tests", or file extensions are missing; not 3 because keyword coverage is genuinely good rather than sparse.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Named tooling ("Rstest dual projects", "Zustand store testing patterns") carves a distinct niche with minor overlap risk against generic testing skills. Not 5 because the absence of trigger phrases leaves it less uniquely identifiable than the anchor example; not 3 because named tools make it clearly more than "somewhat specific".	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 suspicious	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: redpanda-data/console
Path: frontend/.claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md
Commit: 60125ec

Reviewed: 1 day 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.