CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/framework-choice-advisor

Reference catalog for picking a test automation framework or QA tool - covers Playwright / Cypress / Selenium / WebdriverIO / Appium / Espresso / XCUITest / RestAssured / Karate / k6 / Locust with side-by-side tradeoffs on speed, cross-browser, mobile, parallelisation, language support, ecosystem maturity, CI integration; a decision tree for matching project NFRs to framework choice; and reference directory / fixture / CI layouts for the chosen stack. references/ extends the same decision to commercial procurement (a seven-axis vendor evaluation matrix for TCM platforms, no-code tools, and visual-regression services) and to recording the outcome (an ADR-based tool-selection decision record with signal, one recommendation, and flip conditions). This is the **upstream selection step**: it decides which tool to adopt, not how to configure a tool already chosen, and not how to rebalance the unit / integration / E2E mix of an existing suite. Use when starting a new test-automation suite from scratch, evaluating commercial QA vendors, or writing down a tool decision.

57

Quality

72%

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

46%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.

Well-structured reference skill with good progressive disclosure and a clear decision workflow, but it is more descriptive than executable and repeats some rationale across sections. It is honest about being decision-support rather than scaffolding, which limits actionability by design.

Suggestions

Tighten conciseness by consolidating the repeated Selenium/auto-wait flakiness rationale into one canonical mention instead of restating it in the matrix, anti-patterns, and limitations.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in Step 1/Step 2 (e.g., 're-rank NFRs only after every axis is scored 1-5; abort if any axis is undecided') so the decision workflow has a feedback loop for batch/procurement choices.

Make the decision tree more executable by emitting the concrete output artefact at each terminal branch (e.g., 'emit a one-line recommendation + the ADR link') rather than leaving the next action implicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient tables, but explanatory prose repeats concepts (auto-waiting/Selenium flakiness appears several times) and re-explains framework basics Claude already knows, so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is largely descriptive tradeoff narrative and decision-tree prose rather than executable commands or concrete artefacts; the skill itself disclaims producing boilerplate, so users get direction but few copy-paste-ready steps.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-8 are clearly sequenced and the decision tree is navigable, but for a batch/procurement decision there is no explicit validation checkpoint or feedback loop confirming the NFR scoring produced a defensible choice.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Body is a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references (directory-layouts.md, vendor-evaluation.md, decision-record-format.md) that exist as real files; minor inline material could have been pushed deeper.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 dense, specific description that covers what the skill does and when to use it, with explicit boundary against downstream per-framework skills. It is comprehensive but pushes toward verbosity, which slightly dilutes trigger-term crispness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions/contents (decision tree, side-by-side tradeoffs across 11 named frameworks, seven-axis vendor evaluation, ADR decision record) with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (reference catalog for picking a framework/QA tool) and when ('Use when starting a new test-automation suite, evaluating commercial QA vendors, or writing down a tool decision').

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural triggers ('starting a new test-automation suite', 'evaluating commercial QA vendors', 'writing down a tool decision') though missing some shorthand synonyms users might say.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (upstream selection, not configuration) and names sibling skills to avoid overlap, with only minor risk of clashing with per-framework skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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