CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testing-review

Review whole-repo test quality, rerun coverage, score remaining worth-testing files, inspect slow-drift and stale test debt, and publish the next testing batch. Use every few weeks or before large breaking changes and rearchitecture.

62

Quality

75%

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 ./.agents/skills/testing-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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

An efficient, bluntly-written audit workflow with solid sequencing and good command examples. It loses points on actionability (no executable scoring formula) and workflow validation gaps in the coverage/batch operations.

Suggestions

Add an executable scoring rubric or formula (e.g. a concrete point rule per seam type) so the 'Score Remaining Files' step is reproducible rather than described.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint after the coverage run (e.g. verify lcov.info exists and parse pass/fail counts before proceeding to scoring).

Extract the scoring criteria and roadmap template into a referenced bundle file (e.g. references/scoring.md) to enable one-level-deep progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and directive throughout — bullets like 'Use fresh lcov as source of truth' and 'Coverage is regression telemetry, not a KPI' assume Claude's competence with no concept padding, and every line earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Concrete commands are present (bun/pnpm/rg invocations), but the scoring step only describes criteria ('seam type', 'test ROI') without an executable scoring formula or command, leaving the core action incomplete.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced, but a batch/coverage operation lacks an explicit validation checkpoint after coverage runs (e.g. confirm lcov.info exists before scoring), which caps it per the feedback-loop guideline.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with a clear Goal/Inputs/Workflow structure, but there are no bundle reference files and the scoring/roadmap detail is all inline; structure is present but nothing is split off for deeper navigation.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

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 strong, third-person description with concrete actions and an explicit 'Use when...' trigger. Slightly weaker on natural trigger terms, which lean on internal jargon over user-spoken phrasing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'rerun coverage', 'score remaining worth-testing files', 'inspect slow-drift and stale test debt', and 'publish the next testing batch' — matching the multi-action anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers what (the audit/publish actions) and when ('Use every few weeks or before large breaking changes and rearchitecture'), satisfying the explicit-trigger anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'coverage', 'breaking changes', and 'rearchitecture' are relevant but it leans on jargon like 'slow-drift' and 'stale test debt' rather than terms a user would naturally say such as 'test audit' or 'coverage map'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clearly whole-repo test-audit and next-batch recommendation, with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
udecode/plate
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.