CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

e2e-testing-patterns

Master end-to-end testing with Playwright and Cypress to build reliable test suites that catch bugs, improve confidence, and enable fast deployment. Use when implementing E2E tests, debugging flaky tests, or establishing testing standards.

56

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/e2e-testing-patterns/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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 body is lean and well-sectioned, with useful positive and negative scoping lists, but it provides only high-level strategic direction with no executable guidance, no validation checkpoints, and its single detail reference points to a file absent from the bundle. As a result, a Claude following this skill would know what to aim for but not how to do it.

Suggestions

Add at least one executable artifact directly in SKILL.md (e.g., a stable-selector example using Playwright's getByRole, a sample playwright.config.ts with retries/tracing, or a CI invocation command), since the referenced playbook is missing from the bundle.

Create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or repoint the Resources section to an existing file under references/) so the one clearly signaled detail reference actually resolves.

Insert a validation checkpoint into the Instructions sequence, e.g., 'Run the suite locally and confirm zero flaky retries before merging tests into the CI pipeline'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~40 lean lines with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows (e.g., no 'Playwright is a framework that...'). The only arguably trimmable token is the opening mission sentence that restates the frontmatter, which falls short of anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

5 / 5

Actionability

The Instructions are high-level strategic hints ('Build stable selectors and test data strategies', 'Implement tests with retries, tracing, and isolation') with zero code, commands, or concrete procedures, and the only source of detail, `resources/implementation-playbook.md`, does not exist in the bundle. This matches anchor 2 (high-level hints, missing specific steps) rather than anchor 3, which requires some concrete/pseudocode guidance; it is above anchor 1 because real techniques are named and a rough strategy is given.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence exists (identify journeys → build selectors/data → implement → run in CI), but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., no 'verify the suite passes flake-free before promoting to CI'). That is anchor 3 exactly ('steps listed but validation gaps'); not anchor 4 because no checkpoints are present at all.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and there is a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('`resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed E2E patterns and templates'), but that file is missing from the bundle (no references/, scripts/, assets/, or resources/ directories exist), so the disclosure chain dead-ends and all detail content is inaccessible. This is worse than anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' but better than anchor 2, since nothing is inlined or buried and the structure itself is sound.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 solid: it names the domain and tools, includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger phrases, and stays distinct from neighboring test-related skills. Its main weaknesses are a capability statement that leans on benefit claims rather than concrete actions, and a trigger list narrower than the skill's actual scope.

Suggestions

Swap benefit phrases ('improve confidence', 'enable fast deployment') for concrete capabilities, e.g., 'Write and debug Playwright/Cypress test suites, configure cross-browser CI runs, and eliminate flaky tests.'

Broaden the 'Use when' triggers to match the body's scope: setting up CI/CD test pipelines, testing across multiple browsers, validating accessibility or responsive designs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and tools ('end-to-end testing with Playwright and Cypress') and one concrete action ('build reliable test suites'), while 'catch bugs, improve confidence, and enable fast deployment' are benefit claims rather than capabilities. This fits anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive); it is not anchor 4 because several specific actions are not listed, and not anchor 2 because the action given is specific, not generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: what ('Master end-to-end testing with Playwright and Cypress to build reliable test suites...') and when ('Use when implementing E2E tests, debugging flaky tests, or establishing testing standards'). It is not anchor 5 because the when-clause is narrower than the skill's own stated scope — the body lists CI/CD pipelines, multi-browser, accessibility, and responsive testing triggers that the description omits.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasing is well covered: 'implementing E2E tests', 'debugging flaky tests', 'establishing testing standards', plus tool names and the E2E/end-to-end synonym pair. It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensiveness because common variations users would say — 'test automation', 'cross-browser testing', 'CI test pipeline', 'Playwright/Cypress tests' — are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Playwright/Cypress E2E niche is clearly staked with tool-specific triggers, so it is mostly distinct from adjacent skills. It is not anchor 5 because 'establishing testing standards' is generic enough to overlap with unit/integration testing-standards skills, a minor conflict risk with closely related skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Path

skills/e2e-testing-patterns/SKILL.md

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.