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.
60
71%
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
77%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 solid description that clearly states specific capabilities and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause. Its main weakness is that trigger terms could be broader to capture more natural user phrasings, and the 'reviewing tests' trigger could potentially conflict with general code review skills.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common user phrasings like 'unit tests', 'test suite', 'brittle tests', 'test code' to improve discoverability.
Make the 'Use when' clause more specific to reduce overlap with general code review skills, e.g., 'Use when reviewing test quality, diagnosing flaky or brittle tests, or assessing test coverage gaps.'
| 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'). | 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', or 'brittle tests'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Fairly specific to test quality analysis, but 'reviewing tests' could overlap with general code review skills, and 'coverage issues' could overlap with code coverage tools. The niche is reasonably clear but not perfectly distinct. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 skill provides strong, actionable examples with clear bad/good code comparisons that make test smells immediately recognizable. Its main weaknesses are the lack of a structured analysis workflow (how to systematically review test quality) and some redundancy between sections. The content would benefit from a clear step-by-step process for conducting a test quality review rather than being primarily a reference catalog.
Suggestions
Add a structured analysis workflow section at the top (e.g., 'Step 1: Run coverage and check thresholds → Step 2: Scan for overmocking → Step 3: Check assertion quality → Step 4: Identify flaky patterns') with explicit validation checkpoints.
Remove the 'Core Dimensions' bullet list which states concepts Claude already knows, and consolidate the 'Mocking Too Much' anti-pattern with the earlier 'Overmocking' section to eliminate redundancy.
Consider splitting the checklists into a separate reference file (e.g., CHECKLISTS.md) to keep the main skill focused on the analysis process.
| 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. Includes concrete CLI commands for coverage tools, specific threshold values, and copy-paste ready test patterns in both TypeScript and Python. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill provides checklists and categorized smells but lacks a clear sequential workflow for how to actually perform a test quality analysis. There's no explicit process like 'Step 1: Run coverage, Step 2: Scan for smells, Step 3: Check assertions' with validation checkpoints. For an analysis task, a structured review workflow with feedback loops would strengthen this. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 'See Also' section references related skills which is good, but the main content is a long monolithic document. Some sections (like the full code review checklist and best practices checklist) could be split into separate reference files. No bundle files exist to support progressive disclosure. | 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
5e92b71
- 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.