CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/ai-test-generator

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

72

Quality

90%

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

85%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.

A well-structured, actionable skill body with a clear multi-step workflow, explicit validation, and clean progressive disclosure to a real reference file. Conciseness and actionability are strong but have minor trimmability and self-containment gaps.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient with concrete YAML, code, and a terse score table, and avoids re-explaining basics Claude already knows, but the hand-off bullet list and some inline comments are slightly trimmable, keeping it just below the lean anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides mostly-executable guidance — the generator loop, the score() rubric, and specific compile-check commands (npx tsc --noEmit, python -m py_compile, node --check) — but defers helper functions and input loading to the reference, leaving minor gaps from fully copy-paste-ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps include an explicit validation checkpoint (compile check with a concrete downgrade rule) and an explicit feedback loop with a lessons-back-into-prompt diagram and a review checklist, matching the anchor for validation plus error-recovery feedback.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The spine keeps minimal runnable cores inline and offloads full versions plus parsing helpers to a single, clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/generation-and-scoring.md, verified present), with clean sectioning and easy navigation.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong, specific description that clearly states both capabilities and explicit usage triggers with concrete phrasings. Its only mild gap is trigger-term breadth, where a few additional natural synonyms would push it to full coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — generating tests from specs, per-case confidence scoring with named heuristics (assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching for review, and framework integration — giving comprehensive coverage rather than just a few actions with gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (generate + score + batch + integrate) and when, with a concrete 'Use when...' clause listing multiple trigger phrases, matching the anchor that requires both with concrete triggers.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when...' clause covers several natural phrasings ('generate unit tests from acceptance criteria', 'convert user stories to test cases', 'automate test creation from requirements') with synonym variation, but lacks a few common variants a user might say, stopping short of the fully comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The LLM-plus-confidence-scoring-plus-curation-loop framing carves a clear niche distinct from a plain test-writer or a BDD/gherkin converter, with triggers tied specifically to spec-to-test generation and minimal overlap risk.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents