CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/exploratory-charter-author

Authoring workflow that turns a feature spec, risk area, or bug cluster into a session-based exploratory testing charter per Jonathan and James Bach's SBTM - frames the one-sentence mission, scopes 3-7 areas, picks a 60 / 90 / 120 min time-box, suggests tours, and wires the PROOF debrief deliverables. Per Bach, exploratory testing is "performing tests while learning things that may influence the testing" - the charter sets the mission while leaving exact steps to the tester's judgment. Use when a feature has too many unknowns to script (new feature / refactor blast-radius / bug cluster) and a session-based exploration is the right approach. Authors the charter only: the ready-to-fill charter card, session vocabulary, debrief template, and session review live in the exploratory-testing skill this workflow composes with.

64

Quality

80%

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

66%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.

The SKILL.md body is a well-sequenced, lean authoring workflow with clear halt rules and good progressive disclosure via one-level references to a sibling skill. It is slightly less actionable because the actual fillable card lives in a referenced template not bundled here, and lacks an explicit validate/retry loop for the final charter.

Suggestions

Add a short validate step after Step 4 (e.g., re-check the charter against the Halt rules before handing off) to give the workflow an explicit feedback loop.

Inline the minimal charter-card field structure (or a one-line skeleton) so the skill is actionable without opening the sibling template.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean and assumes Claude's competence, with concrete tables and halt rules rather than concept explanation; the Bach quote and some repeated cross-links to the sibling skill add minor padding that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete in pattern (mission table, area derivation, deliverable checklist) but the actual charter-card fields rely on a referenced template that is not in this bundle, so the executable specificity is indirect rather than copy-paste ready.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Four sequenced steps with a distinct halt-rules checkpoint section provide a clear sequence with most checkpoints present, though there is no explicit validate/retry feedback loop for the assembled charter.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well structured with one-level-deep references to the sibling skill's templates (charter-template, tours, debrief) and clear navigation; minor gaps because several referenced files live in another skill's bundle and cannot be verified here.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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.

The description is a strong, concrete statement of a narrowly scoped authoring workflow with explicit 'what' and 'when' guidance and clear boundary against the sibling exploratory-testing skill. Its only weakness is some reliance on domain jargon (SBTM, PROOF) over everyday trigger phrasing.

Suggestions

Soften jargon in the 'when' clause by pairing SBTM/charter terms with everyday phrases like 'exploratory testing' or 'test plan' so users say the natural trigger.

Consider trimming the embedded Bach quote; the description's load-bearing trigger guidance would remain clear and more concise without it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete authoring actions — 'frames the one-sentence mission, scopes 3-7 areas, picks a 60 / 90 / 120 min time-box, suggests tours, and wires the PROOF debrief deliverables' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the workflow produces.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (the authoring workflow output) and 'when' (a feature has too many unknowns to script: new feature / refactor / bug cluster) with concrete trigger phrases, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present ('Use when a feature has too many unknowns to script (new feature / refactor blast-radius / bug cluster)'), but the phrasing leans on domain jargon (SBTM, charter, PROOF debrief) that a user would say less often than 'exploratory testing' or 'test plan'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (authoring exploratory-testing charters only) with explicit boundary noting that execution artifacts live in a sibling skill, minimizing conflict risk with adjacent QA skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 14 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 5 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents