CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/giskard-tests

Test ML models with Giskard's scan() vulnerability detector + test catalog (performance, robustness, fairness, data leakage, ethical issues) for tabular and NLP models. Wrap a prediction function in giskard.Model + a DataFrame in giskard.Dataset; emit test suites that pass/fail in CI. Use when a trained tabular or NLP model is about to ship with no test suite of its own, or when a feature-engineering or hyperparameter change needs a pre-merge scan for newly introduced vulnerabilities.

Quality

87%

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

75%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 solid, code-first skill body: an executable step-by-step workflow with an explicit CI gate and a useful anti-patterns table. The main weaknesses are minor redundancy (duplicated scan categories, repeated citation filler), no NLP example despite the description promising NLP support, and the absence of a recovery loop after a failing test suite.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated scan-category list — the intro quote and Step 4 state the same six categories verbatim; keep only one — and drop the repeated "Per the [Giskard tabular quickstart]" filler lines (a single References entry already covers citation).

Add a short NLP wrapping example (or explicitly state the Model/Dataset API is identical for NLP), since the description promises NLP support but every code sample is tabular.

Add a recovery loop after Step 5: when the suite fails, inspect the report, adjust per-test thresholds per the anti-patterns guidance, and re-run — giving the pass/fail gate an explicit feedback path.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean and code-dominant with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the scan-category list is duplicated (the intro quote vs Step 4's restatement of the same six categories) and the filler line "Per the [Giskard tabular quickstart]" appears three times. Not 5: those duplications could be trimmed; not 3: the padding is minor relative to the whole body.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, near-executable guidance throughout — Dataset/Model wrapping, scan() with HTML report, suite generation with a SystemExit gate, a test_f1 slicing example, and CI YAML. Not 5: placeholders (raw_data, preprocessing_function, classifier, FEATURE_NAMES) must be bound by the reader and the NLP case promised in the description has no code example; not 3: the code shows real API usage, not pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear 7-step sequence (install → wrap dataset → wrap model → scan → generate suite → catalog tests → CI) with an explicit pass/fail checkpoint ("if not suite_results.passed: raise SystemExit") and an anti-patterns table covering common failure modes. Not 5: there is no fix-and-retry recovery loop after a failing suite or scan; not 3: the checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit, and this is not a destructive/batch operation so the cap of 3 does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A well-organized single-file skill (~150 lines) with clear section headers and one clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (the external quickstart link in a References section), with the full test catalog properly deferred to it. Not 5: at over 50 lines with no bundle split, content such as the test-catalog detail or CI integration could live in a references/ file; not 3: structure and reference signaling are solid.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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 description: multiple concrete capabilities, an explicit "Use when" clause with realistic trigger phrases, third-person voice, and a distinct tool-named niche. The only gap is a handful of missing natural synonyms such as "model audit" or "bias".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — "Wrap a prediction function in giskard.Model + a DataFrame in giskard.Dataset", "emit test suites that pass/fail in CI", and scan() plus a test catalog spanning "performance, robustness, fairness, data leakage, ethical issues" — comprehensive coverage for this skill. Not 4: no meaningful gaps in the actions described.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Test ML models with Giskard's scan() vulnerability detector + test catalog") and when ("Use when a trained tabular or NLP model is about to ship with no test suite of its own, or when a feature-engineering or hyperparameter change needs a pre-merge scan") with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4: the when-clause is specific and concrete, not merely present.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "test ML models", "vulnerability", "fairness", "data leakage", "test suite", "pre-merge scan", "feature-engineering or hyperparameter change" — but common variations users might say such as "model audit", "bias", or "model validation" are absent. Not 5: a few natural synonyms are missing; not 3: coverage goes well beyond "some relevant keywords".

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — Giskard-based ML vulnerability scanning for tabular and NLP models — with a named tool and triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not 4: the tool-specific triggers leave minimal overlap risk with similar skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

On this page