CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/email-flow-test-author

Build-an-X for end-to-end email-flow tests - trigger → SMTP capture (via Mailpit / MailHog) → header assertions (DKIM/SPF/DMARC when relayed via real MTA) → body assertions (HTML + plain-text alternative) → link-rewrite + tracking-pixel handling → unsubscribe-link verification → bounce + complaint testing in non-prod (via Mailtrap-style services). Use when authoring tests for any transactional or marketing email flow regardless of the SMTP capture tool.

75

Quality

94%

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%

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

The body is a well-structured, code-forward build-an-X workflow with a clear 9-step sequence, checklist, anti-patterns, and limitations. The main weakness is conciseness: several explanatory paragraphs restate domain concepts Claude already knows and could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Trim concept restatements like the ESP link-rewriting explanation in Step 5 and the bounce/complaint intro in Step 7 down to the test pattern itself, since Claude already knows these mechanisms.

Define or inline the extract_first_link helper used in Step 5 so the link-resolution recipe is fully self-contained and copy-paste ready.

Consider moving the RFC citations (2046 §5.1.4, 8058) into the References section only rather than restating them inline, to reduce repeated tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean and code-forward, but several lead-in paragraphs restate concepts Claude already knows (e.g., 'Many email service providers (Mailgun, SendGrid, Postmark, Customer.io) rewrite links for click tracking. After rewriting, the link ... points to the ESP's tracker, not the target URL'), so it lands on the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor rather than fully lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable Python recipes at every stage (capture, header/body assertions, resolve_redirects, bounce webhook) with specific ESP examples, matching the 'fully executable code, copy-paste ready' anchor; the few undefined helpers (extract_first_link) and framework assumptions are minor and do not reduce it to pseudocode.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear Steps 1–9 sequence culminating in a Step 9 end-to-end checklist, with per-stage assert-based validation, matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps and checklists' anchor; test authoring is not destructive/batch so no cap applies.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, but the body is well organized into Overview, When to use, staged steps, Anti-patterns, Limitations, and a References section with one-level-deep pointers to RFCs and companion skills, and external helpers are signaled inline (e.g., 'the helper from mailpit-testing Step 4'), matching the clear-organization anchor.

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.

The description is strong across all dimensions: specific, complete with an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and clearly distinct from companion skills. Its one weakness is verbosity — the long arrow-chain pipeline could be tightened without losing information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions in a chain: 'trigger → SMTP capture ... → header assertions (DKIM/SPF/DMARC ...) → body assertions (HTML + plain-text alternative) → link-rewrite + tracking-pixel handling → unsubscribe-link verification → bounce + complaint testing', matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the end-to-end email-flow test pipeline) and when ('Use when authoring tests for any transactional or marketing email flow'), satisfying the explicit-trigger anchor; the 'Use when' clause prevents a cap at 2.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are well covered: 'Use when authoring tests for any transactional or marketing email flow' and 'email-flow tests', matching the good-coverage anchor rather than the jargon-only or partial-variation anchors.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche of end-to-end email-flow test authoring with distinct triggers ('transactional or marketing email flow'), unlikely to conflict with the SMTP-capture or sister-channel skills it references.

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