CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tessl/test-health

Find flaky and repeatedly failing tests from recent CI history and file a ticket for each one, before people learn to ignore them.

73

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

93%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is concise, executable, and well-structured with platform-specific commands and an explicit stop-condition. The only gap is a lack of explicit retry/validation feedback for the batch ticket-filing step, which keeps workflow clarity just below top marks.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it gives exact gh/glab commands and classification rules without explaining what CI or a flaky test is, and every line earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

It supplies copy-paste-ready commands (e.g. `gh run list --limit 100 --json ...`, `gh run view <id> --log-failed`, `gh issue create ...`) and concrete classification bars covering both GitHub and GitLab, matching the fully-executable anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The three-step sequence is clear with concrete commands and key checkpoints (skip duplicates before filing; stop and say so if nothing crossed the bar), but there is no explicit validate/retry feedback loop for the batch filing step, so it sits below the score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a self-contained, well-organized single-file overview with clear section headers and no bundle files to reference; under the simple-skill exception this warrants a 5.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly states both the capability and trigger context in third person, with concrete actions and a distinct niche around flaky-test detection from CI history. Minor room to surface more natural trigger synonyms and richer action coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Find flaky and repeatedly failing tests from recent CI history" and "file a ticket for each one worth fixing" name several concrete actions (find/classify, file tickets) with a defined data source, though extraction/classification detail is slightly undersold relative to what the body delivers.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers "what" (find flaky/repeatedly failing tests, file tickets) and "when" ("Use for a scheduled test-health check that catches test rot early") with a concrete trigger phrase, matching the score-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrasing is present ("flaky tests", "repeatedly failing tests", "test rot", "test-health check") and a clear "Use for a scheduled test-health check" clause exists, but synonyms like CI/retry/red-build language are only weakly represented.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The CI-history flaky-test-detection niche is specific and paired with an explicit scheduled-check trigger, making overlap with other skills minimal.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents