test-coverage

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

Quality

67%

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/test-coverage/SKILL.md

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.

The body is a well-organized overview with concrete thresholds and a clean one-level reference to rule.md, scoring high on progressive disclosure and actionability. It is held back by an unnecessary concept-explanation opener and the lack of an explicit sequenced review workflow with validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Drop or trim the opening sentence explaining what coverage thresholds do; Claude already knows this, so lead directly with the actionable Quick Reference.

Turn the 'Code Review' section into an explicit sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint, e.g. (1) locate coverage config, (2) confirm thresholds enforced in CI, (3) verify failures block merge, (4) flag exact gaps with file:line references.

Merge or remove the 'Explain' section if it duplicates the 'Fix' guidance, or convert it into concrete per-framework config snippets instead of a restated directive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly tight and sectioned, but the opening sentence ('Coverage thresholds prevent code quality from degrading...') explains a concept Claude already knows, and the 'Explain' section restates intent rather than adding guidance.	3 / 5
Actionability	Quick Reference gives concrete, usable thresholds (70% branches, 80% lines/functions/statements, 90%+ for critical code) and named frameworks (Jest, Vitest); the 'Fix' step stays high-level but defers specifics to the referenced file.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections imply a rough flow but there is no explicit sequenced workflow or validation checkpoint for verifying that flagged gaps actually block regressions.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A concise, well-sectioned overview points clearly and one level deep to references/rule.md (a real file) for full implementation details and code examples, with easy navigation.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 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.

The description leads with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and conveys a clear, rule-specific review focus with natural trigger terms. It is strong on completeness and trigger quality but slightly thin on the breadth of concrete actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('CI coverage, automated checks, test strategy') and a concrete review action plus a focused angle ('whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented'), but the action set is narrow and not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicit 'Use when...' trigger answers 'when', and the 'Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified' clause answers 'what' clearly, though the 'what' is more about review focus than a full capability list.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say ('CI coverage', 'automated checks', 'test strategy', 'test coverage thresholds'); a few common synonyms or phrasings are missing, keeping it just below comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped to a specific rule ('Maintain test coverage thresholds') with distinct triggers, but 'automated checks' and 'test strategy' are broad enough to risk minor overlap with adjacent testing-rule 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/test-coverage/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.