tdg-personal/rust-testing
Rust testing patterns including unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, and coverage. Follows TDD methodology.
71
71%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
67%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 does a good job listing specific Rust testing capabilities and is clearly distinguishable from other skills. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which would help Claude know exactly when to select this skill. Adding common user-facing trigger phrases and variations would also improve discoverability.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about writing tests in Rust, running cargo test, debugging test failures, or setting up test infrastructure.'
Include common trigger term variations like 'cargo test', '#[test]', 'test-driven development', 'assert macros', and 'test harness' to improve matching with natural user queries.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions/areas: unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, coverage, and TDD methodology. These are concrete, well-defined testing concepts. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' (Rust testing patterns across multiple categories), but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The 'when' is only implied by the topic listing, which caps this at 2 per the rubric guidelines. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good technical terms like 'unit tests', 'integration tests', 'mocking', 'coverage', and 'TDD' that users would naturally use. However, it misses common variations like 'test-driven development', '#[test]', 'cargo test', '#[cfg(test)]', or 'test failures' that Rust developers would commonly say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'Rust' with specific testing methodologies (property-based testing, async testing, TDD) creates a clear niche. It's unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or testing skills for other languages. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, highly actionable Rust testing reference with excellent executable code examples covering a wide range of testing patterns. Its main weaknesses are its length (could benefit from progressive disclosure into separate files) and some verbosity in introductory/best-practices sections that don't add value for Claude. The workflow section could be strengthened with explicit validation checkpoints and error recovery guidance.
Suggestions
Split detailed sections (proptest, mockall, benchmarking, CI) into separate referenced files to reduce the main skill's token footprint and improve progressive disclosure.
Remove the 'When to Use' section and the closing 'Remember' line — these are obvious to Claude and waste tokens.
Add explicit validation/error-recovery steps to the TDD workflow, e.g., what to do when cargo test produces unexpected compilation errors or when coverage falls below threshold.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly comprehensive but includes some unnecessary verbosity — the 'When to Use' section states obvious scenarios, the 'Best Practices' DO/DON'T list contains advice Claude already knows (e.g., 'keep tests independent'), and the closing 'Remember' line is motivational fluff. However, most code examples are lean and earn their place. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Nearly every section provides fully executable, copy-paste ready code examples with concrete commands. From unit tests to proptest strategies to CI YAML configs, the guidance is specific and immediately usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The TDD RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle is clearly sequenced, but the overall workflow (steps 1-7 in 'How It Works') lacks explicit validation checkpoints beyond 'check coverage.' There are no feedback loops for when tests fail unexpectedly or when coverage targets aren't met — it's more of a checklist than a guided workflow with error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear section headers, but it's a monolithic document (~350 lines) that could benefit from splitting detailed sections (mocking, proptest, benchmarking, CI) into separate referenced files. There are no cross-references to external files for deeper dives. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (501 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents