e2e-testing

Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Implement end-to-end testing. Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/e2e-testing/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%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.

A tight, well-organized review skill that delegates detailed executable examples to a clean one-level reference. Its main weakness is that the body presents review modes rather than an explicitly sequenced review workflow with inline validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add an explicit sequenced review workflow with validation checkpoints in the body, e.g. 1) locate the CI workflow, 2) confirm an E2E job exists and gates merges, 3) inject a failing assertion and verify the pipeline is blocked.

Convert the `references/rule.md` pointer into a markdown link and surface the reference's Verification steps as a short inline checklist so checkpoints are not buried in the reference.

Drop or trim the opening "E2E tests catch integration issues that unit tests miss…" line, which restates knowledge Claude already has.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	A lean, well-sectioned body that mostly assumes Claude's competence; only the opening line ("E2E tests catch integration issues that unit tests miss…") over-explains a concept Claude already knows.	4 / 5
Actionability	Specific directives (Playwright/Cypress, data-testid, Page Object Model, CI artifact uploads on failure) plus fully executable code one level deep in references/rule.md; the body itself carries no inline executable code, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections are action modes rather than a sequenced workflow, and the validation/Verification checkpoints live only in the reference, so checkpoints are implicit relative to the body.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear overview body with a single well-signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md, verified real and non-nesting) holding the detailed code and examples; content is appropriately split and easy to navigate.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 clear, trigger-rich description that names its niche and when to fire, with solid keyword coverage. It is held back from the top band by actions that stay at the "reviewing/focusing" level rather than enumerating concrete review steps.

Suggestions

Replace the generic "reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy" with a few concrete review actions, e.g. "grep CI workflows for an E2E job", "confirm test failures block merges", and "check that critical journeys (auth, checkout) are covered".

Add common synonyms/tool names (e.g. "E2E tests", "Playwright", "Cypress") to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and a couple of concrete actions ("reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy", "Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified"), but does not enumerate several specific review actions for comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has an explicit "Use when…" clause with concrete triggers and a stated "what" (focus on continuous verification), but the "what" is an emphasis directive rather than a crisp capability list.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say ("CI coverage", "automated checks", "test strategy", "end-to-end testing"), but omits common synonyms and tool names (E2E, Playwright, Cypress) that would push it to comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped to E2E-testing review with distinct triggers; only minor overlap risk with adjacent testing-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
Path: skills/e2e-testing/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 5 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.