testing-general
Language-agnostic testing principles: boundary assertions, null checks, and behavior-driven test naming
53
58%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/testing-general/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 identifies a reasonable niche (language-agnostic testing principles) and lists some specific subtopics, but it reads more like a topic list than an actionable skill description. It critically lacks a 'Use when...' clause and doesn't describe concrete actions the skill performs, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select it.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for help writing tests, improving test quality, or naming test cases.'
Rewrite with concrete action verbs describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Generates well-structured tests with boundary assertions, null/edge-case checks, and behavior-driven naming conventions.'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'unit tests', 'write tests', 'test cases', 'edge cases', 'test naming', 'TDD'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (testing) and some specific actions/concepts (boundary assertions, null checks, behavior-driven test naming), but these are more like topics than concrete actions. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does with these concepts (e.g., 'generates tests', 'reviews test coverage'). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes loosely what the skill covers (testing principles) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. The 'what' is also weak since it lists topics rather than actions. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'testing', 'boundary assertions', 'null checks', and 'behavior-driven test naming', but misses common user phrases like 'unit tests', 'write tests', 'test cases', 'TDD', or 'test coverage'. Users are unlikely to say 'boundary assertions' naturally. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'language-agnostic testing principles' framing provides some distinction from language-specific testing skills, and the specific topics (boundary assertions, null checks, behavior-driven naming) narrow the scope. However, it could still overlap with general testing or code quality skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise skill that efficiently communicates language-agnostic testing principles. Its main weakness is the lack of any concrete examples—even a single illustrative test name or AAA-structured pseudocode snippet would significantly boost actionability. The organization and token efficiency are excellent.
Suggestions
Add one concrete example of a well-named test following the 'should <behavior> when <condition>' pattern to make the naming convention immediately actionable.
Include a brief, language-agnostic AAA example (even pseudocode) showing the blank-line separation between Arrange, Act, and Assert phases.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line delivers actionable guidance without explaining concepts Claude already knows. No filler, no definitions of testing or mocking—just direct, lean instructions. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The guidance is concrete and specific (e.g., 'Assert both the error type and message', 'Mock only what you don't control') but lacks executable code examples. For a language-agnostic instruction skill this is partially justified, but even one concrete example of test naming or AAA structure would improve actionability. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a principles/conventions skill rather than a multi-step process, so workflow complexity is low. The single-task guidance is unambiguous: structure, what to test, mocking rules, assertion rules, and coverage philosophy are clearly sequenced and logically grouped. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a short, self-contained skill (~30 lines) with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections that are easy to scan. No bundle files are needed. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- ucdavis/ai-skills-registry
- Commit
c0b2e4b
- 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.