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 minimal description that provides essentially no useful information for skill selection. It only contains invocation syntax and a skill name, with no explanation of capabilities, domain, or trigger conditions. Claude would be unable to meaningfully select this skill from a pool of available skills.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Implements London-school (outside-in) test-driven development using mock objects and interaction-based testing to build software from the outside in.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for TDD, test-driven development, London-school testing, outside-in development, mockist TDD, or building features using red-green-refactor with mocks.'

Remove the invocation syntax from the description (it's operational metadata, not a capability description) and replace it with specific actions the skill performs, such as writing failing tests first, creating mock objects, or driving design through test interactions.

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'.	1 / 3
Completeness	The description answers neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it'. It only provides invocation syntax, which is operational metadata rather than functional description.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only potentially relevant terms are 'tdd' and 'london' embedded in the skill name, but these are not presented as natural keywords a user would say. There are no terms like 'test-driven development', 'outside-in TDD', 'mockist testing', or similar natural language triggers.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that Claude would have no basis to distinguish this skill from any other agent skill. The only distinguishing element is the name 'tdd-london-swarm' but without explanation of what that means.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

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

This skill is a verbose conceptual essay about London School TDD rather than actionable guidance. It explains concepts Claude already knows, uses fictional/non-existent APIs throughout its code examples, and lacks any concrete workflow with validation steps. The 'swarm coordination' concept is entirely abstract with no grounding in real tools or processes.

Suggestions

Replace fictional APIs (swarmCoordinator, createSwarmMock, SwarmContractMonitor) with real, executable code using actual testing libraries like Jest or Vitest

Add a concrete step-by-step workflow: e.g., 1. Write failing acceptance test → 2. Run test (verify red) → 3. Create mocks → 4. Implement → 5. Verify green → 6. Refactor, with explicit validation at each step

Cut the content by 60-70% by removing explanations of TDD concepts Claude already knows and focusing only on project-specific conventions, tool configurations, and unique patterns

Either define what 'swarm coordination' concretely means with real tools/commands, or remove the swarm sections entirely as they add no actionable value

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~200+ lines. Explains TDD concepts Claude already knows (what outside-in TDD is, what behavior verification means). The 'Core Responsibilities' section is pure description. Many code examples are illustrative/conceptual rather than adding unique knowledge. The 'swarm coordination' patterns use fictional APIs (swarmCoordinator, SwarmContractMonitor) that aren't real tools.	1 / 3
Actionability	The code examples use fictional APIs (swarmCoordinator.notifyTestStart, createSwarmMock, SwarmContractMonitor) that don't exist and aren't executable. The 'swarm coordination' concept is never grounded in real tools or commands. Most examples are pseudocode dressed as TypeScript - they illustrate concepts rather than providing copy-paste-ready guidance.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	No clear step-by-step workflow for actually performing TDD. The numbered sections (1, 2, 3) describe concepts rather than sequenced steps. There are no validation checkpoints, no error recovery paths, and no concrete process for when tests fail or mocks need updating. The 'Outside-In Development Flow' doesn't actually describe a flow.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline with no clear hierarchy or navigation. The document mixes basic concepts, advanced patterns, and best practices all at the same level without any structure for progressive discovery.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 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: 398f7c2

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.