test-quality-analysis
Detect test smells, overmocking, flaky tests, and coverage issues. Analyze test effectiveness, maintainability, and reliability. Use when reviewing tests or improving test quality.
79
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/test-quality-analysis/skills/test-quality-analysis/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
85%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 a strong description that clearly defines its niche in test quality analysis with specific capabilities and explicit trigger guidance. The main weakness is that trigger terms could be broader to capture more natural user phrasings beyond technical terminology. Overall it would perform well in skill selection among a large set of skills.
Suggestions
Add more natural user-facing trigger terms like 'unit tests', 'test suite', 'test code', 'brittle tests', or 'tests keep failing' to capture how users naturally describe test quality problems.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: detect test smells, overmocking, flaky tests, coverage issues, and analyze test effectiveness, maintainability, and reliability. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Detect test smells, overmocking, flaky tests, and coverage issues. Analyze test effectiveness, maintainability, and reliability') and when ('Use when reviewing tests or improving test quality') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'test smells', 'overmocking', 'flaky tests', 'coverage issues', and 'test quality', but misses common user phrasings like 'unit tests', 'test suite', 'test code review', 'brittle tests', or specific frameworks. Users might say 'my tests keep failing randomly' rather than 'flaky tests'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Focuses on a clear niche of test quality analysis and test smell detection, which is distinct from general code review, test generation, or test execution skills. The specific terms like 'test smells', 'overmocking', and 'flaky tests' create a well-defined scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid reference skill with excellent actionable code examples showing bad/good patterns for common test quality issues. Its main weaknesses are the lack of a clear analytical workflow (how to systematically perform a test quality review) and some redundancy between the 'Test Smells' and 'Common Anti-Patterns' sections. The skill would benefit from a defined step-by-step analysis process and consolidation of overlapping content.
Suggestions
Add a clear step-by-step workflow for performing a test quality analysis (e.g., 1. Run coverage tools, 2. Scan for smell patterns, 3. Review assertions, 4. Report findings) with validation checkpoints.
Consolidate the 'Common Anti-Patterns' section with 'Test Smells' to eliminate redundancy — 'Mocking Too Much' and 'Testing Implementation Details' are already covered above.
Remove the 'Core Dimensions' bullet list or reduce it to a single sentence — these are concepts Claude already understands and don't add actionable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient with good use of code examples, but some sections are slightly redundant (e.g., 'Mocking Too Much' in anti-patterns repeats the overmocking section). The 'Core Dimensions' list at the top is somewhat generic knowledge Claude already possesses. Could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable code examples for every smell and anti-pattern with clear bad/good comparisons. Coverage tool commands are copy-paste ready. Checklists are concrete and specific. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is primarily a reference/checklist skill rather than a multi-step workflow, but it lacks a clear sequence for how to actually perform a test quality analysis (e.g., 'Step 1: Run coverage, Step 2: Scan for smells, Step 3: Check assertions'). The checklists are useful but there's no explicit process for conducting the analysis or feedback loops for remediation. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 'See Also' section at the bottom references related skills, which is good. However, the content is fairly long and monolithic — the anti-patterns section partially duplicates the test smells section. No bundle files exist to offload detailed content, and the inline content could benefit from better separation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- secondsky/claude-skills
- Commit
b30de6b
- 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.