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

62%

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

57%

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

The skill is well-structured as a lean overview that correctly offloads detail to a verified one-level reference. Its weaknesses are redundancy between Check/Code Review sections, deferred executable code, and an absence of explicit validation checkpoints in the body.

Suggestions

Merge the overlapping Check and Code Review sections to remove redundancy and tighten conciseness.

Inline at least one minimal executable snippet (e.g., a Jest coverageThreshold config block) so the Fix step is actionable without opening the reference.

Add a short inline verification step (e.g., 'confirm CI fails when coverage drops below threshold') to give the workflow an explicit checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean with concise Quick Reference bullets, but the Check and Code Review sections restate the same review task, and the opening 'Coverage thresholds prevent code quality from degrading' sentence explains a concept Claude already knows.	2 / 3
Actionability	Quick Reference gives concrete threshold values (70% branches, 80% lines, 90%+ critical), but the Fix section is abstract ('Configure coverage thresholds in Jest, Vitest...') with no executable code or commands in the body itself — those live only in the reference.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Check and Fix imply a sequence, but there is no explicit validation/verification checkpoint in the body (the Verification steps are deferred to references/rule.md), matching the 'steps listed but checkpoints missing' anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md' for full details), and that reference file exists and does not nest further, matching the level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 has an explicit Use-when trigger and clear focus on continuous verification, satisfying completeness. Specificity and trigger-term coverage are solid but not exhaustive, and the broad testing vocabulary creates some overlap risk.

Suggestions

Add more concrete actions to the description (e.g., 'audit coverage config, set thresholds, wire CI gates') to lift specificity toward level 3.

Include common user phrasings like 'code coverage' or 'coverage report' alongside 'CI coverage' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten the scope wording (e.g., 'coverage threshold enforcement') to reduce overlap with general test-strategy skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy') and a focus action ('whether the rule is continuously verified'), but does not list multiple distinct concrete actions like the level-3 'extract, fill, merge' example.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy') and when via an explicit 'Use when reviewing...' trigger clause, matching the level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ('CI coverage', 'test coverage thresholds', 'test strategy') but misses common variations a user might say such as 'code coverage' or 'coverage report', matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'Maintain test coverage thresholds' niche is fairly specific, but 'automated checks' and 'test strategy' are broad enough to overlap with other testing/CI skills, matching the 'somewhat specific but could overlap' anchor rather than a clearly conflict-free niche.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 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: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 8 hours 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.