golang-testing

Go testing patterns including table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices.

Quality

80%

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/golang-testing/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is highly actionable with executable code and a clear TDD workflow, but it is a long monolithic file with minor boilerplate prose and no progressive disclosure into reference files.

Suggestions

Split large standalone topics (benchmarks, fuzzing, coverage, CI/CD) into reference files linked from a concise overview to improve progressive disclosure and token budget.

Remove the redundant opening sentence and the 'Remember: Tests are documentation...' platitude to tighten conciseness toward score 3.

Add a short navigation/index near the top pointing to each section so the single-file structure is easier to scan.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly tight, executable code, but carries avoidable prose such as the redundant opener 'Comprehensive Go testing patterns...' and the closing 'Remember: Tests are documentation...' advice Claude already knows; it does not reach score 3 because not every token earns its place.	2 / 3
Actionability	Throughout the body are fully executable, copy-paste-ready Go code blocks plus concrete shell commands (e.g. 'go test -bench=BenchmarkProcess -benchmem'), matching the anchor for fully executable guidance.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle is laid out as an explicit step-by-step sequence with validation checkpoints ('Step 3: verify FAIL', 'Step 5: verify PASS'), matching the anchor for a clear sequence with explicit validation.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single ~720-line file with no reference bundle; it is well sectioned but several large topics (benchmarks, fuzzing, CI/CD) are inlined rather than split into one-level-deep references, so it sits at the 'could be better organized' anchor rather than the split-file anchor for 3.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 specific, distinctive, and rich in natural trigger terms, but omits an explicit 'Use when...' activation clause, capping completeness at 2.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when writing Go tests, adding coverage, or creating benchmarks/fuzz tests.' to raise completeness to 3.

Drop or tighten 'Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices' — it is an over-claim of methodology that the description cannot guarantee on its own.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage' — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but lacks any explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause or equivalent 'when' guidance, which the rubric caps at 2; it is not a 1 because the 'what' is strongly specified.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It uses natural terms users would say ('Go testing', 'table-driven tests', 'subtests', 'benchmarks', 'fuzzing', 'test coverage') with good coverage of common variations, beyond the single-keyword anchor for score 2.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is clearly Go testing with distinct triggers (table-driven, benchmarks, fuzzing, coverage), making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; not score 2 since it is more specific than 'Works with document files'.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

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 — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (722 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Repository: ysyecust/everything-claude-code
Path: skills/golang-testing/SKILL.md
Commit: a9cbecb

Reviewed: 1 day 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.