Name: testland/browser-matrix-strategy-reference
Rating: 70.39999999999999 (1 reviews)
Author: testland

testland/browser-matrix-strategy-reference

Pure-reference for designing and reviewing a browser / OS / device test matrix from traffic data - the T1/T2/T3 tier-membership heuristics (T1 >=5% traffic, T2 1-5% or statutory, T3 <1% with customer demand), the traffic-share sources (own analytics, StatCounter, MDN browser-compat-data), a worked matrix template with tier-change log, the matrix review checklist (staleness, T1 oversize, below-threshold T1 entries, missing real-device coverage), how to justify dropping a legacy browser (IE11, old iOS Safari), and the compatibility budget (tier caps, CI cost formula, published support statement) in references/compatibility-budget.md. Use when designing an initial matrix, capping or publishing a support policy, running a quarterly re-tier review, or making the case to drop a browser. This is the WHAT-to-test strategy reference - to execute the matrix use playwright-testing browser projects (bundled engines), selenium-grid-4-runner (self-hosted), or cloud-grid-e2e (managed grids).

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

81%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 reference skill with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops in its workflow. Its main weaknesses are redundancy across sections and a broken reference to a non-existent references/browser-matrix.md file.

Suggestions

Remove the broken references/browser-matrix.md citations (lines ~15 and ~222) or add the missing file, since progressive_disclosure is scored against actual bundle paths.

De-duplicate the compatibility-budget pointer (Overview, 'Capping the matrix' section, and References all re-introduce it) and the own-analytics/StatCounter guidance (table + follow-on paragraph) to tighten conciseness.

Consider moving the anti-patterns and limitations tables into a reference file to keep SKILL.md a leaner overview, leaving the core tier model and heuristics inline.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~225-line body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but carries noticeable redundancy: the compatibility-budget reference appears in the Overview, the Capping section, and References, and the own-analytics/StatCounter guidance is repeated as both a table and a follow-on paragraph.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete numeric heuristics (T1 >=5%, T2 1-5%, T3 <1%), named data sources with URLs, an 8-step process, a worked example with real percentages, and a checklist with specific rules (Reviewed <90 days, >6 T1 combos trigger) make this fully actionable for a reference skill.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step 'How to use' sequence includes an explicit validation checkpoint (step 8 requires two independent sources plus a statutory/SLA check before dropping a combo) and the review checklist's BLOCK/WARN findings plus 'Refuse to treat as PASS while any BLOCK stands' provide a feedback loop.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Good sectioning and one-level-deep links to real bundle files (compatibility-budget.md, matrix-template.md, compatibility-budget-tiers.md), but references/browser-matrix.md is cited twice in the body and does not exist in the references/ directory, a navigation defect that blocks a clean 5.	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, third-person description that answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with explicit boundary guidance against sibling execution skills. Trigger phrasing is solid but slightly jargon-leaning and omits a few natural user phrasings.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions (tier-membership heuristics, traffic-share sources, worked matrix template, review checklist, legacy-browser drop justification, compatibility budget) with comprehensive coverage, matching the anchor-5 example.	5 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states the 'what' (a pure-reference for designing/reviewing a test matrix with heuristics, sources, template, checklist, and budget) and an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger scenarios, satisfying anchor 5.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when designing an initial matrix, capping or publishing a support policy, running a quarterly re-tier review, or making the case to drop a browser' clause gives good keyword coverage, but it leans on jargon and misses common natural phrasings like 'cross-browser testing' or 'which browsers should I support'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear WHAT-to-test strategy niche and explicitly deflects to sibling execution skills (playwright-testing, selenium-grid-4-runner, cloud-grid-e2e), giving minimal conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 2 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Reviewed

19 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation