CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

unit-tests

Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Write unit tests. 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/unit-tests/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 as an overview with excellent progressive disclosure to references/rule.md, but it leans on generic guidance and restates known concepts, with no executable examples or validation checkpoints inline. It reads more as a rule checklist than an actionable, sequenced workflow.

Suggestions

Drop the opening paragraph and the "Explain" section that restate what unit tests are and why they matter—Claude already knows this—and keep only directive guidance to tighten conciseness.

Add at least one concrete, executable example inline (e.g., a minimal vitest test snippet or the `pnpm test:coverage` command with thresholds) instead of offloading all specifics to references/rule.md, so the body is actionable on its own.

Reframe Check → Fix → Code Review as an explicit sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint, e.g., "run `pnpm test:coverage` and confirm thresholds pass before treating the rule as satisfied," to add the missing feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The opening paragraph ("Unit tests catch bugs before they reach production, serve as documentation...") and the "Explain" section restate concepts Claude already knows, but the remainder (Quick Reference, Check/Fix/Code Review) is lean, matching the score-2 "mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation" anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

The Quick Reference bullets give some concrete guidance ("Aim for 80%+ coverage", "Mock external dependencies, not internal modules") but the body has no executable code or specific commands—all specifics are offloaded to references/rule.md—so guidance is incomplete per the score-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections provide loose structure but no clear sequenced workflow and no explicit validation checkpoint in the body, fitting the score-2 "sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit" anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a one-level-deep reference ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`", which exists), matching the score-3 "clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references" anchor.

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 is strong: it leads with an explicit "Use when..." trigger, covers natural testing/CI terms, and states both what it does and when to use it. Its main weakness is mild genericness in the stated actions and some overlap risk with other testing-related skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain and a couple of actions ("reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy", "Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified") but does not list multiple specific concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor rather than the comprehensive score-3 list.

2 / 3

Completeness

It has an explicit "Use when..." trigger (the when) plus a stated what (review CI coverage/automated checks/test strategy and focus on continuous verification), clearly answering both; the present "Use when" clause avoids the score-2 cap.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural terms a user would actually say ("CI coverage", "automated checks", "test strategy", "unit tests"), giving good coverage of the testing/CI domain consistent with the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unit-testing/CI-verification niche is reasonably specific, but the description could still overlap with adjacent testing or QA skills, fitting the score-2 "somewhat specific but could overlap" anchor rather than a clearly conflict-free niche.

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.