agent-tdd-london-swarm

Agent skill for tdd-london-swarm - invoke with $agent-tdd-london-swarm

1.01x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.01x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-tdd-london-swarm/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is an extremely weak description that fails on every dimension. It provides only an invocation command and a cryptic name ('tdd-london-swarm') with zero explanation of what the skill does, when to use it, or what domain it covers. Claude would have no basis for selecting this skill appropriately.

Suggestions

Add concrete capability descriptions, e.g., 'Guides London-style (outside-in) test-driven development using mock objects and interaction-based testing patterns.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about TDD, test-driven development, London-school TDD, outside-in testing, mocking, or writing tests before implementation.'

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-tdd-london-swarm') from the description field, as it wastes space that should be used for capability and trigger information.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. It only states it's an 'agent skill' and how to invoke it. There is no indication of what the skill actually does beyond the name 'tdd-london-swarm', which is jargon.	1 / 3
Completeness	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only provides an invocation command, with no explanation of capabilities or trigger conditions.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	No natural keywords a user would say are present. 'tdd-london-swarm' is a technical/internal name, not something a user would naturally request. Terms like 'test-driven development', 'London-style TDD', 'outside-in testing', or 'mocking' are entirely absent.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it provides no distinguishing information. The term 'agent skill' is completely generic and would not help differentiate this from any other skill.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

14%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is excessively verbose, explaining TDD London School concepts that Claude already understands while simultaneously introducing undefined 'swarm coordination' abstractions that aren't actionable. The content lacks a clear sequential workflow with validation steps, and everything is crammed into a single monolithic file. The concrete Jest mock examples are the strongest element, but they're buried in conceptual explanations and fictional APIs.

Suggestions

Cut the content by 60-70%: remove 'Core Responsibilities' (redundant with methodology), collapse 'Best Practices' into inline notes, and eliminate explanations of what London School TDD is - just show the patterns.

Add a clear step-by-step workflow: 1. Write failing acceptance test → 2. Define mock contracts → 3. Implement to satisfy mocks → 4. Run tests and verify → 5. Refactor. Include explicit validation checkpoints.

Either define the swarm coordination APIs concretely (with actual implementations) or remove them entirely - `swarmCoordinator`, `createSwarmMock`, `SwarmContractMonitor` are undefined and not actionable.

Split into SKILL.md (overview + quick start + workflow) with references to separate files for detailed patterns (e.g., MOCK_PATTERNS.md, SWARM_COORDINATION.md, CONTRACT_TESTING.md).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~200+ lines. Explains TDD concepts Claude already knows (what outside-in TDD is, what behavior verification means). Many sections are redundant - 'Swarm Coordination Patterns' and 'Swarm Integration' overlap significantly. The 'Core Responsibilities' section restates what the methodology sections already cover. Bullet lists like 'Best Practices' are generic advice Claude doesn't need.	1 / 3
Actionability	Code examples are concrete TypeScript/Jest snippets, but many are illustrative rather than executable - e.g., `swarmCoordinator.notifyTestStart()`, `createSwarmMock()`, `SwarmContractMonitor` are undefined abstractions that don't exist. The mock setup and verification patterns are actionable, but the 'swarm coordination' code is pseudocode for non-existent APIs.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Despite being a multi-step TDD process, there is no clear sequential workflow with validation checkpoints. The numbered sections (1, 2, 3) under methodology describe concepts rather than a step-by-step process to follow. There's no 'when to stop mocking,' no error recovery, no validation that tests actually pass before proceeding. The outside-in flow is described conceptually but not as an actionable sequence.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of content with no references to external files. All content is inline despite being far too long for a SKILL.md overview. The swarm coordination patterns, testing strategies, and best practices could each be separate referenced documents. No navigation aids or clear hierarchy for discovery.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/ruflo
Commit: ccb062f

Reviewed: 3 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.