CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

test-implement

Implements React/TypeScript unit, integration, and browser E2E tests with the repository's configured runner, mocks, setup, and browser harness. Use when creating or completing frontend tests and generated test skeletons.

75

1.06x
Quality

79%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

99%

1.06x

2 of 3 eval scenarios. Add 1 more for a full score.

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/test-implement/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

An exemplary progressive-disclosure structure: a lean routing overview pointing to two real, one-level-deep references carrying the detail. The body itself is thinner on executable guidance — no code or example test — and offers no implementation/validation sequence, deferring those entirely to the references.

Suggestions

Add a minimal executable anchor to the body — e.g., a short runnable test skeleton or the command to run the suite — so the top-level file is actionable without opening a reference.

Include an explicit implement→run→classify-failures sequence (or a one-line pointer to the Failure Classification workflow in references/frontend.md) so the validation loop is signaled at the top level.

Trim the Arrange-Act-Assert and test-independence explanations, which restate knowledge Claude already has, down to one-line directives to tighten token efficiency.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and table-driven with no padding, but sections like the Arrange-Act-Assert expansion and test-independence bullets restate concepts Claude already knows — minor over-explanation that could be trimmed, placing it at anchor 4 rather than the fully-earned-token anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

The routing table and directives like "mock random and time dependencies" give some concrete guidance, but the body itself contains no code, example test, or commands — the executable detail lives entirely in the references, and anchor 4 requires concrete code or commands with only minor gaps.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Reference selection is unambiguous via the table, but test implementation is inherently multi-step and the body provides no implement→run→verify sequence or validation checkpoints (e.g., run the suite and classify failures), leaving checkpoints missing or implicit — anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present'.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview with a routing table pointing to references/frontend.md and references/e2e.md — both verified to exist, one level deep, with no further nesting — each clearly signaled with a when-to-use column, exactly matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

83%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description with an explicit what/when pair, natural trigger terms, and concrete capability listing. Its only weakness is moderate, not comprehensive, trigger-term coverage and slight genericness around the word "tests".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several specific capabilities — "unit, integration, and browser E2E tests with the repository's configured runner, mocks, setup, and browser harness" — with only minor coverage gaps, fitting the 'lists several specific actions' anchor rather than the comprehensive anchor 5 or the minimal 1-2-action anchor 3.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: "Implements React/TypeScript unit, integration, and browser E2E tests..." (what) and "Use when creating or completing frontend tests and generated test skeletons" (when) with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 5 example structure; anchor 4 would require a weaker or less explicit 'when'.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "frontend tests", "test skeletons", and "unit", "integration", "E2E" tests match what users would say, but common variations ("test coverage", ".test.tsx", "spec files") are missing, placing it at good-but-not-comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The React/TypeScript frontend scope carves a clear niche distinct from general testing skills, but the broad term "tests" leaves minor overlap risk with backend or generic test-writing skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than minimal-conflict anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
shinpr/claude-code-workflows
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.