req-to-test
Derives executable test cases directly from requirements (user stories, acceptance criteria, specs) by extracting testable conditions, enumerating equivalence classes and boundaries, and producing a traceability map from each test back to its source requirement. Use when building acceptance tests from a spec, when checking whether requirements are covered by existing tests, when translating Gherkin or plain-English criteria into code, or when proving coverage for compliance.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:santosomar/general-secure-coding-agent-skills --skill req-to-test97
Quality
96%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Discovery
100%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 excellent skill description that clearly articulates specific capabilities (extracting testable conditions, enumerating equivalence classes, producing traceability maps) and provides comprehensive trigger guidance with four distinct use cases. The description uses appropriate third-person voice and includes both technical terms and natural language that users would employ when needing this skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'extracting testable conditions', 'enumerating equivalence classes and boundaries', 'producing a traceability map'. These are precise, technical activities that clearly define what the skill does. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (derives test cases, extracts conditions, enumerates boundaries, produces traceability) AND when with explicit 'Use when...' clause covering four distinct scenarios: building acceptance tests, checking coverage, translating Gherkin, and proving compliance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'requirements', 'user stories', 'acceptance criteria', 'specs', 'acceptance tests', 'Gherkin', 'coverage', 'compliance'. Good coverage of both technical and plain-English terms. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused on requirements-to-test derivation with distinct triggers like 'traceability', 'equivalence classes', 'boundaries', 'Gherkin', and 'compliance coverage'. Unlikely to conflict with general testing or documentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a high-quality skill that provides comprehensive, actionable guidance for deriving tests from requirements. The step-by-step workflow is clear, the worked examples are concrete and executable, and the 'Do not' section provides valuable guardrails. The only weakness is the monolithic structure—some content (like the edge cases or the detailed worked example) could potentially be split into separate reference files for better progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is dense with actionable information and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place with specific tables, examples, and decision criteria rather than padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout: specific test templates with ARRANGE/ACT/ASSERT structure, worked examples with exact values, decision tables for classification, and clear output formats. The Gherkin worked example is particularly copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequential process with explicit decision points (triage → extract → enumerate → derive negatives → emit). Each step has clear inputs/outputs, and the workflow includes validation through traceability maps and explicit gap flagging. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and tables, but it's a substantial monolithic document (~200 lines). The reference to 'ambiguity-detector' suggests related skills exist, but there's no structured navigation to advanced topics or separate reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.