visual-regression

Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Use visual regression testing. 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/visual-regression/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-structured, concise overview that uses one-level-deep progressive disclosure effectively, but it delegates all executable code and validation steps to the reference file, leaving its own actionability and workflow clarity at a moderate level.

Suggestions

Inline one minimal executable snippet in the Fix section (e.g. a Playwright `toHaveScreenshot` example with `maxDiffPixelRatio`) so the body is actionable without requiring the reference.

Add a short validation checkpoint to the Code Review section, e.g. 'Confirm the CI step fails the build on a visual diff, not just prints a warning' with the verify command, to raise workflow clarity above 3.

Trim the opening motivational paragraph to one sentence; the 'CSS refactor breaks layout' justification is concept explanation Claude already knows and duplicates the references' 'Why It Matters' section.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient — Quick Reference bullets and the Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections are lean and directive — but the opening motivational paragraph ('A CSS refactor might pass all unit and integration tests while completely breaking the layout — text overlapping images, buttons invisible, wrong colors') explains a concept Claude already knows, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The body names tools and direction ('Set up visual regression tests ... using Playwright's screenshot comparison or a tool like Chromatic', 'Set pixel difference thresholds') but contains no executable code or commands — the concrete, copy-paste-ready examples are offloaded to references/rule.md, matching the score-3 anchor of 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections are modes of use rather than a sequenced workflow, and the body has no explicit validation checkpoints (those live in references/rule.md's Verification section), so it lands at 3 ('steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit').	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that cleanly offloads full implementation to a single one-level-deep, well-signaled reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), and references/rule.md exists and holds the detailed code, matching the score-5 anchor.	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 has an explicit 'Use when' trigger and reasonable keyword coverage, but its capability statement is an abstract focus directive rather than a concrete action list, which keeps it in the 3–4 range across dimensions.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract 'Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified' with concrete capabilities, e.g. 'Audits CI workflows and test suites to confirm visual regression screenshots are compared on every merge and block regressions on failure.'

Add common synonyms/file cues users actually say — 'screenshot comparison', 'UI snapshot tests', 'Playwright toHaveScreenshot', 'Chromatic' — to broaden trigger coverage.

Tighten the trigger so it is less likely to fire for unrelated testing skills, e.g. 'Use when reviewing whether visual/screenshot regression testing is enforced in CI' rather than the broad 'CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('visual regression testing', 'CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy') and a couple of review-level actions, but the actions ('reviewing', 'Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified') are abstract rather than a concrete capability list, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has an explicit 'Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy ...' trigger (the 'when') and a 'what' directive ('Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented'), but the 'what' is a focus directive rather than concrete capabilities, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say — 'CI coverage', 'automated checks', 'test strategy', 'visual regression testing' — giving good keyword coverage, though a few common synonyms (e.g. 'screenshots', 'UI tests') are missing, fitting the score-4 anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'visual regression testing' niche is distinct, but the broad trigger terms 'CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy' create minor overlap risk with other testing-strategy skills, matching the score-4 anchor.	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/visual-regression/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.