test-implement
Test implementation patterns and conventions. Use when implementing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests, including RTL+Vitest+MSW component testing and Playwright E2E testing.
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%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 with excellent trigger terms and completeness, featuring an explicit 'Use when' clause with specific testing types and frameworks. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat abstract ('patterns and conventions') rather than listing concrete actions like writing mocks, setting up test fixtures, or asserting behavior. The framework-specific mentions (RTL, Vitest, MSW, Playwright) add strong distinctiveness.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract 'patterns and conventions' with concrete actions like 'Write test cases, mock API responses, set up test fixtures, and assert component behavior'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (testing) and mentions specific frameworks (RTL, Vitest, MSW, Playwright), but doesn't list concrete actions beyond 'implementing tests'. It lacks specifics like 'write test cases, mock API responses, set up test fixtures, assert component behavior'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (test implementation patterns and conventions) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when implementing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests') with specific trigger scenarios including framework-specific contexts. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'E2E tests', 'RTL', 'Vitest', 'MSW', 'Playwright', 'component testing'. These cover common variations of how users refer to testing tasks. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche around testing with specific framework mentions (RTL+Vitest+MSW, Playwright). This is unlikely to conflict with other skills unless there are multiple testing-related skills, and the framework specificity helps disambiguate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured routing skill that efficiently directs users to the right reference based on test type, with concise common principles. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete, executable examples—even a brief code snippet for each test type would significantly improve actionability. The progressive disclosure pattern is sound but cannot be fully verified without the referenced bundle files.
Suggestions
Add a brief executable code example for each test type (e.g., a minimal RTL+Vitest component test and a minimal Playwright test) to improve actionability.
Include the referenced bundle files (references/frontend.md and references/e2e.md) so the progressive disclosure structure can be fully validated.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. It avoids explaining what tests are or how testing frameworks work—concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place: the reference table, AAA structure reminder, and independence/naming conventions are all brief and relevant. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides structural guidance (AAA, independence, naming) but lacks concrete executable examples. There are no code snippets showing actual test implementations, no sample test files, and no specific commands for running tests. The guidance is directional rather than copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple routing/reference skill rather than a multi-step workflow. The table clearly directs the user to the right reference based on test type, and the common principles section is unambiguous. For this type of skill, the single-action routing is clear enough to warrant a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill correctly references two separate files (frontend.md and e2e.md) for detailed content, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references exist or are well-structured. The overview itself is well-organized but the lack of verifiable referenced files limits confidence. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.
- Repository
- shinpr/claude-code-workflows
- Commit
adf2e4d
- 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.