CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/boundary-value-generator

Generates boundary-value test cases from typed input specifications - for each input field, produces the canonical 6-point set (one below, at, and above the lower bound; one below, at, and above the upper bound) plus equivalence-class representatives. Emits cases as parameterized test inputs (pytest @parametrize / Jest test.each / xUnit InlineData / etc.). Use when a function or endpoint has numeric / string-length / collection-size constraints and the team needs systematic edge-case coverage.

90

Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Average score across 10 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

82%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, highly actionable skill body with concrete generation rules and code. The main gaps are mild verbosity from four redundant runner examples and the absence of an explicit post-generation validation step.

Suggestions

Add a brief validation checkpoint after Step 3 (e.g. confirm regex-violating string cases actually fail the regex and that emitted cases parse in the target runner) to lift workflow_clarity to 5.

Collapse the four near-identical pytest/Jest/xUnit/JUnit emission blocks into one canonical example plus a compact table of per-runner syntax, reducing token cost.

Consider moving the full multi-runner emission snippets into a references/ file and keeping one representative example inline to improve progressive_disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean and assumes Claude's knowledge of pytest/Jest, but the four near-identical test-runner emission blocks (pytest/Jest/xUnit/JUnit) and the string example with '...' placeholders add length that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides a concrete YAML input schema, exact per-type generation rules with literal expected outputs, and copy-paste-ready parameterized code across four runners — fully executable.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3 sequence with an anti-patterns checklist and a 'When NOT to apply' guardrail, but no explicit validation checkpoint (e.g. 'verify generated cases satisfy the regex / compile') after emission.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with clearly signaled one-level-deep external references (ISTQB links, sibling skills); no bundle files exist to verify, and the ~260-line body is all inline, which is reasonable for a single-task skill but could split the multi-runner examples out.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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 what it does and when to use it in third-person voice. Minor trigger-term synonym gaps keep it just below a perfect trigger-term score.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — 'produces the canonical 6-point set', 'equivalence-class representatives', 'Emits cases as parameterized test inputs (pytest @parametrize / Jest test.each / xUnit InlineData)' — covering the skill comprehensively.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (generates the 6-point boundary set plus equivalence-class reps, emits as parameterized inputs) and when ('Use when a function or endpoint has ... constraints and the team needs systematic edge-case coverage').

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would say ('edge-case coverage', 'numeric / string-length / collection-size constraints') plus tool keywords, but omits common synonyms like 'off-by-one' or standalone 'edge cases'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (boundary-value test generation) with distinct triggers; the 'canonical 6-point set' framing is unlikely to fire for sibling skills like pairwise or negative-test generation.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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