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.

Quality

63%

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/unit-tests/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 well-structured, lean overview that defers detail appropriately to one real reference file. It is held back by a padded opening sentence, no executable examples in the body, and missing validation/feedback checkpoints in the test-writing workflow.

Suggestions

Remove or condense the opening paragraph explaining what unit tests are; Claude already knows this and the Quick Reference covers the value propositions more concisely.

Add one small executable example (e.g., a minimal test file or a CI run command) in the body so the overview is actionable without requiring the reference.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the Fix section (e.g., run the suite and confirm coverage thresholds pass before declaring the fix complete).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient (compact Quick Reference bullets and short directive sections), but the opening paragraph ('Unit tests catch bugs before they reach production, serve as documentation...') explains benefits Claude already knows and could be trimmed.	3 / 5
Actionability	Quick Reference gives concrete principles (80%+ coverage, mock external deps, run in CI) and Check/Fix/Code Review give directive guidance, but the body contains no executable code or commands—all implementation is deferred to references/rule.md, leaving key details missing from the overview.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review provides a rough sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., run tests / verify coverage after Fix), which matters for a test-writing workflow.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview with well-organized sections and a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md') that exists as a real bundle file.	5 / 5
	Total	14 / 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 focused, trigger-bearing description that clearly scopes a unit-test/CI-coverage review skill with mostly natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is limited action coverage and slightly templated 'Write unit tests' phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Write unit tests') and frames a concrete reviewing action, but lists only a narrow set of actions and omits activities like writing or fixing tests, so coverage is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ('reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy' with a focus on continuous verification) and when ('Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Write unit tests'), though the phrasing is somewhat templated and the 'when' could be sharper.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say are present ('CI coverage', 'automated checks', 'test strategy', 'unit tests'), giving good keyword coverage, though a few common synonyms (e.g., 'test coverage', 'regression tests') are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The unit-test/CI-coverage review niche is clearly scoped and distinguishable, with only minor overlap risk against broader testing or CI 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/unit-tests/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 4 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.