CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/idempotency-test-author

Use whenever the same request or message could be processed twice (at-least-once queues, retries, webhook redelivery, double clicks, mobile retries) and duplicates must have no extra effect. Tests idempotency keys, delivery semantics, fingerprint dedup and the idempotency window.

Quality

90%

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

81%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 well-structured, actionable skill body: a clear 7-step workflow with an end-to-end checklist, executable pytest patterns for each failure mode, and an appropriately used one-level-deep reference file. The main issues are cosmetic — verbatim prose duplicated between SKILL.md and the reference file, minor undefined fixtures in examples, and a messy References section.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the Step 4 and Step 6 prose against references/idempotency-patterns.md — keep a one-line summary in SKILL.md and let the reference file carry the full explanation and code.

Make the test examples self-contained: define the `charge` variable in the TTL test and briefly note that `endpoint`, `store`, and `charge_processor` are app-specific fixtures to be adapted.

Clean up the References section: move the `[aws-idem]:` link definition to the bottom of the file, use a normal markdown link instead of `[aws-idem][aws-idem]`, and keep each sibling-skill bullet on a single line.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient — tables, checklists, and test code are tight — but the Step 4 and Step 6 prose ("Some systems can't add idempotency keys...", "The hardest case: two requests with the same idempotency key arrive simultaneously") is duplicated nearly verbatim in references/idempotency-patterns.md, and the Stripe pattern recap partially re-explains what Claude already knows. Not 5: the cross-file duplication is avoidable token cost; not 3: padding is limited to a couple of spots rather than several sections.

4 / 5

Actionability

Real, runnable pytest patterns with concrete assertions ("assert (status1, body1) == (status2, body2)", "assert charge_processor.execute.call_count == 1") cover every common case, and advanced code lives in the verified reference file. Not 5: examples are not fully self-contained — the TTL test uses an undefined `charge` variable and fixtures like `endpoint`/`store`/`charge_processor` are assumed without definition; not 3: this is executable code, not pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–7 form a clear sequence culminating in an explicit per-handler checklist ("1. ✅ Single-request happy path test ... 6. ✅ ... redelivery ... doesn't double-process"), with each step's test pattern carrying its own assertion-based checkpoint and the Anti-patterns table serving as error-recovery guidance. Not 4: validation checkpoints are explicit in the end-to-end recipe rather than merely present.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

"Full code + test: [references/idempotency-patterns.md](references/idempotency-patterns.md)" is a well-signaled, one-level-deep, verified reference at the point of use, and the core-key vs. advanced-concurrency split is appropriate. Not 5: the References section navigation is messy — the `[aws-idem]:` link definition sits mid-body (between Overview and When to use), sibling-skill bullets wrap mid-sentence, and `[aws-idem][aws-idem]` is an awkward link form; not 3: the file split and in-context signals themselves are well done.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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: third-person voice, explicit 'Use whenever' trigger clause with concrete conditions, and a specific enumeration of what gets tested. The only weakness is mild trigger overlap with closely related queue/webhook testing skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Tests idempotency keys, delivery semantics, fingerprint dedup and the idempotency window" lists multiple specific concrete testing targets that comprehensively cover the idempotency domain. Not 4: the coverage has no real gaps — keys, semantics, dedup, and window are the complete set of concerns for this skill.

5 / 5

Completeness

"Use whenever the same request or message could be processed twice (...) and duplicates must have no extra effect" explicitly answers 'when' with concrete trigger conditions, and "Tests idempotency keys, delivery semantics, fingerprint dedup and the idempotency window" explicitly answers 'what'. Not 4: both halves are explicit and concrete rather than the 'when' merely being present.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"at-least-once queues, retries, webhook redelivery, double clicks, mobile retries", "duplicates", and "idempotency keys" give comprehensive natural-term coverage with multiple synonyms for the duplicate-processing concept across HTTP, queue, and UI contexts. Not 4: the common variations users would actually say (retries, webhook redelivery, double clicks, duplicates) are all present.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"duplicates must have no extra effect" carves a clear niche distinct from generic delivery-testing skills, but triggers like "webhook redelivery" and "retries" have minor overlap risk with closely related sibling skills (webhook-delivery-tester, sqs-tests) that the body itself cross-references. Not 5: those shared delivery terms could plausibly route to a sibling skill; not 3: the core duplicate-effect trigger is distinct and specific.

4 / 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