CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/amplitude-experiment-test

Wraps Amplitude Experiment SDK testing patterns: client initialization with API key (or a bootstrapped local flag config for offline tests), the fetch / variant API, exposure-event suppression in tests, and assignment-integrity tests. Use when writing tests for code that uses Amplitude Experiment for A/B testing or flag management.

76

Quality

95%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

87%

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

A lean, highly actionable testing-patterns skill with executable code, non-obvious gotchas, and a useful anti-patterns guardrail table. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: it reads as a collection of authoring patterns rather than a sequenced workflow with explicit validation checkpoints or a feedback loop.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the authoring flow, e.g. a numbered 'write test -> run npm test -> if assignment-integrity or exposure checks fail, fix and re-run' loop, so the workflow has a clear validate->fix->retry structure.

Call out a verification gate after initialization (e.g. 'assert the bootstrapped cache returns expected variants before writing further tests') to make the sequence's checkpoints explicit rather than implicit.

Consider a short numbered 'Test authoring workflow' section at the top that orders the Authoring subsections into an explicit step sequence with validation between steps.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and dominated by tight, executable code plus non-obvious gotchas (e.g. start() throwing offline and clearing the bootstrapped cache); it does not re-explain generic concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. The brief Overview framing is necessary context, not padding, keeping it above the score-2 "could be tightened" bar.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout — install commands, initialize/bootstrap code, evaluateV2 and mock test examples, exposure-suppression config, an assignment-integrity test, and CI YAML — with no pseudocode or vague direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Sections are roughly sequenced (install -> initialize -> read/force/suppress -> assignment-integrity -> run -> CI) and there is a guardrail anti-patterns table, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or a validate->fix->retry feedback loop tying the steps together, matching the score-2 anchor where the sequence is present but checkpoints are missing or implicit. It is not score 1 because steps are clearly listed and ordered, and not score 3 because no explicit validation gate structures the flow.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Overview, When to use, Authoring subsections, Running, CI, Anti-patterns, Limitations, References) with one-level-deep external doc links and named companion skills, and no nested file references; the inline code is appropriate for a copy-paste patterns skill rather than content that should be split out.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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, well-formed description: concrete capabilities, natural trigger terms, an explicit "Use when" clause, and clear platform-specific distinctiveness. It closely matches the rubric's good_overall_examples with no fluff or over-claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "client initialization with API key", "the fetch / variant API", "exposure-event suppression in tests", and "assignment-integrity tests" — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions rather than a single domain+action (score 2).

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states what it does (wraps the listed testing patterns) and gives an explicit "Use when writing tests for code that uses Amplitude Experiment for A/B testing or flag management" trigger clause, satisfying both what AND when.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms a user would say when needing this skill — "Amplitude Experiment", "A/B testing", "flag management", "writing tests" — giving good coverage; the technical jargon (fetch/variant API) sits alongside these natural triggers, not in place of them.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Anchored to the named platform "Amplitude Experiment" in both the what and when clauses, giving it a clear niche unlikely to trigger for non-Amplitude skills; the shared generic "A/B testing or flag management" phrasing slightly overlaps sibling SDK skills but the explicit platform naming keeps it distinct.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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