Name: testland/failure-injection-test-author
Rating: 72.8 (1 reviews)
Author: testland

testland/failure-injection-test-author

Orchestrates WireMock fault stubs (HTTP-level fault: 500s, malformed JSON, slow responses) with Toxiproxy (TCP-level: latency, packet loss, reset) into a single resilience test scenario - the test starts both, applies fault per scenario, runs the SUT against the impaired endpoints, verifies the SUT's resilience patterns. Use when one test must reproduce a combined network + HTTP failure - a cross-layer failure mode from an incident postmortem that neither pure HTTP fault stubs nor pure TCP chaos can cover alone, because most real failures span both layers.

Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

92%

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

A highly actionable, concise skill body with a clear sequenced workflow and built-in verification. The only gap is progressive disclosure: everything lives in one monolithic SKILL.md with no detail files split out.

Suggestions

Extract the scenario catalog (Step 5) and the verdict template (Step 6) into a referenced file such as references/scenarios.md so SKILL.md stays an overview.

Add a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (e.g. 'See references/scenarios.md for the full catalog') once bundle files exist.

Consider moving the anti-patterns table into a references file if it grows, keeping the core workflow in SKILL.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and efficient: the body never explains what WireMock or Toxiproxy are, jumps straight into a topology, compose file, curl, test code, and tables — every token earns its place and it assumes Claude's competence.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable artifacts — a complete docker-compose.test.yml, a curl proxy-config command, a complete TypeScript spec with WireMock mappings and Toxiproxy toxics plus assertions, and CI yaml — copy-paste ready; the only abstraction (sut.fetchOrder) is necessarily app-specific.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear numbered sequence (Steps 1–7: topology, compose, proxy config, per-scenario setup, catalog, verdict, CI) with verification built in — the test asserts the WireMock request log count and a verdict table records per-pattern results, and the Anti-patterns section explicitly flags unverified logs.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear sections, but it is a ~210-line monolithic single file with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent); content like the scenario catalog and verdict template is inline rather than split into one-level-deep reference files, matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'.	2 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

85%

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 with an explicit Use-when trigger and clear differentiation from sibling skills. Its main weakness is trigger-term density: the phrasing leans technical and misses a few simpler user-facing variations.

Suggestions

Soften jargon in the trigger clause by adding natural phrasings users actually say, e.g. 'chaos testing', 'retry-behavior test', or 'flaky-network + API-error test'.

Trim or gloss dense terms like 'cross-layer failure mode' and 'SUT' so the Use-when clause reads as something a user would naturally request.

Consider leading with the most relatable trigger ('reproduce an incident's combined network + HTTP failure') before the technical detail.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'starts both, applies fault per scenario, runs the SUT against the impaired endpoints, verifies the SUT's resilience patterns' — alongside the WireMock + Toxiproxy orchestration, matching the multi-action anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (orchestrates WireMock + Toxiproxy, starts both, applies fault, runs SUT, verifies patterns) and when via a concrete 'Use when one test must reproduce a combined network + HTTP failure' trigger clause.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains natural terms a target user would say ('resilience test', 'incident postmortem', 'combined network + HTTP failure', '500s', 'latency', 'packet loss'), but is jargon-dense ('cross-layer failure mode', 'fault stubs', 'TCP chaos', 'SUT') and omits simpler variations like 'chaos testing' or 'retry test', so it sits at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Carves a clear niche by contrasting itself against 'pure HTTP fault stubs' and 'pure TCP chaos', explicitly stating neither alone covers the combined failure mode — unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation