CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

test-driven-development

Implements a feature or bug fix test-first: write one failing test, run it and watch it fail, write the minimal code to pass, then refactor with the tests green. Use when a change alters code behavior: a new feature, a bug fix, or a behavior change, whether the request comes alone or through delivery-flow.

73

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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 process skill: a lean, well-sequenced red-green-refactor cycle with validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops at every step, plus an appropriately deferred single reference. The only minor gap is the absence of any concrete example (such as a sample failing test), which keeps actionability just short of full marks.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example of a failing test and the minimal code that makes it pass, to lift actionability from concrete guidance to copy-paste-ready.

Name how to find the project's test command (e.g., check package.json scripts / Makefile / CI config) in step 2 instead of the generic 'the project's test command'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~25-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanation of what TDD is or why it matters, no library tutorials, no padding. Phrases like "Write one test for one behavior" and "Add nothing the test does not need" earn their tokens; the one-line opening summary is orientation, not over-explanation, so the level-5 anchor fits better than level 4.

5 / 5

Actionability

The guidance is directive and concrete — "Run the project's test command", "The test must fail because the behavior is missing, not because of a typo or a missing import", "If it passes, it tests nothing new: change the test" — with clear failure criteria and decision points. It sits at level 4 rather than 5 because there are no concrete examples or commands (e.g., a sample failing test or how to find the project's test command), a minor gap even for an instruction-only skill.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step cycle is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints at every phase ("Watch it fail", "Watch it pass. Run the full suite", "Run the suite again" after refactor) and genuine feedback loops for error recovery ("If it passes... change the test"; code written before its test "is deleted and written again from the test"). This matches the level-5 anchor including its feedback-loop criterion.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body keeps only the cycle and rules inline, and defers test-writing detail to a single one-level-deep reference that is real (references/writing-good-tests.md) and clearly signaled with a conditional load cue ("When writing or changing a test, read..."). Structure and navigation match the level-5 anchor; nothing is inlined that belongs in a separate file.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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: third-person, concrete, and complete, pairing a full statement of the TDD cycle with an explicit and well-scoped 'Use when' trigger clause. The only weakness is mild — a few natural synonyms (TDD, test-driven) that users might say are absent from the trigger terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists four concrete, sequential actions covering the full cycle — "write one failing test, run it and watch it fail, write the minimal code to pass, then refactor with the tests green" — with no vague filler. Coverage of the TDD workflow is comprehensive, matching the level-5 anchor rather than the level-4 anchor ('minor gaps in coverage'), since nothing in the cycle is omitted.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' is "Implements a feature or bug fix test-first: write one failing test... then refactor with the tests green" and the 'when' is an explicit "Use when a change alters code behavior: a new feature, a bug fix, or a behavior change" clause with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the level-5 anchor exactly; level 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present: "a new feature", "a bug fix", "a behavior change", "test-first" — terms users would genuinely say when this skill applies. It falls at level 4 rather than 5 because a few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., "TDD", "test-driven", "write the tests first"), and it is above level 3 since common variations of the core triggers are covered.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill carves a clear niche — the test-first implementation cycle — with distinct process triggers, so it is mostly distinguishable from other skills. It is not level 5 because the 'when' clause ("a change alters code behavior") is broad enough to overlap with general implementation or testing skills, but the overlap is minor and the methodology is unambiguous, placing it above level 3.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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

tesslio/tessl-eval-demo

Path

03-ablation/versions/no-done-check/sdlc-implementation/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

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.