CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

integration-testing

Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Write integration tests for key workflows. Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented.

60

Quality

70%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/integration-testing/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

The body is well-structured and properly delegates detail to a real one-level reference, but it spends tokens re-explaining basic testing concepts, keeps the Fix guidance abstract, and lacks explicit validation checkpoints in its workflow.

Suggestions

Delete the opening paragraph and the first Quick Reference bullet that re-explain what integration tests are and how they differ from unit tests; Claude already knows this.

Add a minimal concrete test skeleton or a specific runner command in the Fix section rather than outsourcing every example to references/rule.md.

Insert an explicit validation step after writing tests, e.g. "run the suite and confirm the new test passes and fails without the fix".

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The opening paragraph and the first Quick Reference bullet re-explain what integration tests are and how they differ from unit tests — concepts Claude already knows — so it is mostly efficient but carries unnecessary explanation.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete integration points to inspect ("where API routes call services, where services interact with the database"), but the Fix section is abstract ("Write integration tests for the identified critical paths") with no code or concrete pattern in the body, delegating all examples to the reference.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clearly laid out, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g. run the suite, confirm the test fails without the fix), so checkpoints are implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with well-organized sections and a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md for code examples and framework guidance; the referenced file exists and holds the detailed content.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

82%

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

The description answers both what and when with natural trigger terms and an explicit "Use when" clause, but its capabilities read as abstract review verbs and its broad testing triggers risk overlapping with similar testing skills.

Suggestions

Replace abstract verbs ("reviewing", "Focus on") with concrete capabilities, e.g. "audit CI workflows for missing integration tests, flag untested API-to-database paths, and propose test additions".

Tie the broad trigger terms ("automated checks", "test strategy") explicitly to integration testing so they don't fire for sibling unit- or E2E-testing skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain and some actions ("reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy" and "Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified"), but the actions are abstract variants of review/check rather than multiple concrete operations, so it falls short of the anchor-3 example.

2 / 3

Completeness

It opens with an explicit "Use when..." trigger (the when) and states the what ("Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented"), clearly answering both what and when with an explicit trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural terms a developer would actually say ("CI coverage", "automated checks", "test strategy", "integration tests"), giving good coverage of natural trigger phrasings rather than a single keyword.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The integration-testing scope is a clear niche, but broad trigger terms like "automated checks" and "test strategy" could overlap with sibling testing skills (unit, E2E), so it is somewhat specific rather than clearly conflict-free.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
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.