CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/manual-test-script-author

Builds stakeholder-readable scripted manual test cases from a feature spec in four formats: a step-table (preconditions / steps / expected result / actual / pass-fail / notes) for spreadsheet review, a Gherkin Given/When/Then format for BDD-aware teams, a business-language UAT script with acceptance-criteria mapping and contractual sign-off (references/uat-format.md), and a one-line-per-item execution checklist for smoke / on-call / bug-bash / compliance sweeps (references/checklist-format.md). Each script is self-contained (no implicit team knowledge), single-scenario (one happy + N edge per script), and includes the data setup the tester needs without being a developer. Use when a feature can't be (or shouldn't be) fully automated and a human tester needs an executable script or checklist - UAT sign-off rounds, regression baselines, certification testing, deploy smoke checklists, exploratory follow-up scripts.

74

Quality

93%

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

86%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 strong, highly actionable skill body: worked examples in both inline formats, disciplined single-scenario and self-contained-data rules, and clean offloading of the UAT and checklist formats to real reference files. The main improvements are trimming minor redundant rationale (the Step 5 quote, repeated single-scenario argument) and adding an explicit verification step over the generated scripts.

Suggestions

Cut the Wikipedia blockquote and 'Per [exploratory-wiki]' framing in Step 5, and drop the duplicated single-scenario rationale (keep it in either Step 4 or the anti-patterns table, not both) to tighten conciseness.

Add an explicit verification pass as a final step (e.g., check every step row has an Expected result, preconditions cite concrete data, and each TC covers one logical scenario) so the workflow has a concrete checkpoint before emitting the output format block.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is example-driven and largely free of padding, but a few elements could be trimmed: the Wikipedia blockquote in Step 5 and the single-scenario rationale stated twice (Step 4 prose and again in the anti-patterns table). These are minor instances of over-explanation rather than the 'some unnecessary explanation' of anchor 3.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready templates: a complete step-table with real test data (WELCOME10, BOOK-001, vault references), a complete two-scenario Gherkin example, a concrete defect-log table, and a fill-in output format block. The worked promo-code example covers the common cases end-to-end.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-6 form a clear, well-sequenced authoring workflow (read input, choose format, scenario discipline, self-contained data, defect integration, output format) with format-selection guidance. However, there is no explicit verification pass over the produced script (e.g., a self-containment or expected-result-per-step check); the anti-patterns table serves only as an implicit checkpoint.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a genuine overview: the two full format specifications (UAT, checklist) are appropriately split into one-level-deep reference files (references/uat-format.md, references/checklist-format.md, both verified present), clearly signaled inline at the point of need and again in a References section. Navigation is easy and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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 dense, specific description that clearly states what the skill produces (four concrete formats with structural detail) and when to use it (explicit trigger scenarios covering UAT, regression, certification, smoke, and exploratory follow-up). Third-person voice is maintained and no clause is filler; the only weakness is slight trigger overlap with a sibling exploratory-testing skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Enumerates multiple concrete capabilities: four named output formats with structural detail (step-table columns, Gherkin Given/When/Then, UAT acceptance-criteria mapping, one-line checklist items) plus script qualities like 'self-contained (no implicit team knowledge)' and 'single-scenario'. Coverage is comprehensive with no significant gaps, matching the anchor-5 example.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (builds manual test cases in four named formats with their structures) and 'when' via a dedicated 'Use when a feature can't be (or shouldn't be) fully automated...' clause listing concrete trigger scenarios. This matches the anchor-5 example's structure of clear what + explicit when with trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would actually say appear throughout: 'UAT sign-off rounds', 'regression baselines', 'certification testing', 'deploy smoke checklists', 'smoke / on-call / bug-bash / compliance sweeps', 'feature spec'. Synonym coverage across use contexts is comprehensive; no common variation is noticeably missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (human-executable scripts vs automation, delimited by 'can't be (or shouldn't be) fully automated'), but the 'exploratory follow-up scripts' trigger term carries minor overlap risk with a closely related session-based exploratory-testing sibling skill, fitting anchor 4 ('minor overlap risk with closely related skills') better than 5.

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

Table of Contents