tdg-personal/ai-regression-testing
Regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code.
73
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
57%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 carves out a distinctive niche around regression testing in AI-assisted development contexts, which is its strongest aspect. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which limits Claude's ability to know when to select it, and the capabilities described lean toward abstract categories rather than concrete actions. Adding trigger guidance and more natural user-facing keywords would significantly improve selection accuracy.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about testing AI-generated code, regression testing strategies, or ensuring code quality in AI-assisted workflows.'
Include more natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'test suite', 'test coverage', 'automated tests', 'code review', 'CI testing', or 'catching bugs in AI code'.
Make capabilities more concrete by specifying actions, e.g., 'Sets up sandbox API test environments, creates automated regression test suites, implements dual-review patterns to catch AI-generated code errors.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (regression testing for AI-assisted development) and several actions (sandbox-mode API testing, automated bug-check workflows, catching AI blind spots), but these are more like categories/patterns than concrete discrete actions. Terms like 'strategies' and 'patterns' are somewhat abstract. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is reasonably covered (regression testing strategies, sandbox API testing, bug-check workflows, AI blind spot patterns), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance telling Claude when to select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords like 'regression testing', 'API testing', 'sandbox-mode', 'bug-check', and 'AI blind spots', but misses common user phrasings like 'test suite', 'test coverage', 'CI/CD', 'automated tests', or 'quality assurance'. The phrase 'AI-assisted development' is somewhat niche. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on AI-assisted development regression testing, sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, and catching AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code is a clearly distinct niche that is unlikely to conflict with generic testing or coding skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, highly actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity and real executable code examples. Its main weakness is verbosity — the narrative explanations of the core problem and the 4-fix story, while compelling for humans, consume tokens explaining concepts Claude can infer. The monolithic structure would benefit from splitting detailed patterns and helpers into referenced files.
Suggestions
Trim the 'Core Problem' section to 2-3 lines — the FAIL/PASS code pairs in the patterns section already demonstrate the issue more effectively than the narrative.
Extract the 'Common AI Regression Patterns' section into a separate PATTERNS.md file and reference it, reducing the main skill to an overview with quick reference table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is quite long (~300 lines) and includes some explanatory content that Claude doesn't need (e.g., explaining the core problem with AI blind spots, the 4-fix narrative). The real-world example story is illustrative but verbose. The patterns section and code examples earn their place, but the overall document could be tightened by ~30%. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Excellent actionability — provides fully executable Vitest config, test helpers, test examples, and command definitions. Code is copy-paste ready with real imports, types, and assertions. The patterns section gives concrete FAIL/PASS code pairs that are immediately usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The bug-check workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit steps (test → build → review → write regression test), includes validation checkpoints (FAIL → report, PASS → continue), and has a clear feedback loop where each bug fix produces a new regression test. The mandatory ordering is explicitly stated. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear headers and a quick reference table, but it's monolithic — all content is inline in a single file. The patterns section, test helpers, and setup could be split into referenced files. For a skill this long (~300 lines), some progressive disclosure to separate files would improve navigability. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents