CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/papermill-tests

Use Papermill to parameterize and execute notebooks in CI as regression tests - `papermill input.ipynb output.ipynb -p alpha 0.6` (CLI) or `pm.execute_notebook(...)` (Python API). Use when notebooks must run as parameterized regression jobs in CI.

75

Quality

94%

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

87%

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

The body is highly actionable and concise with executable code throughout and clean section organization. The main gap is workflow clarity: while output assertions provide validation, the failure-recovery feedback loop is implicit rather than an explicit checkpoint in the step sequence.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation feedback loop to the regression-test workflow (e.g. 'if assertions fail -> inspect the uploaded output notebook -> fix the notebook -> re-run papermill') rather than leaving recovery implicit in the worked example.

Consolidate the repeated 'Per the [Papermill execute docs]' callouts into a single reference at the end to reduce redundancy across Steps 1, 3, 4, and 8.

Consider moving the parameter-flag table (Step 4) and the nbval/testbook pairing table (Step 7) into a short reference file to keep the main SKILL.md closer to an overview, reinforcing progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean: short code blocks and tables per section, and it does not explain concepts Claude already knows (e.g. what a notebook or pytest is). 'Per the [Papermill execute docs]' repeats across steps and the Worked example partly restates Step 5, but overall every token earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready: 'pip install papermill', a full pm.execute_notebook(...) call, CLI flag examples, a complete pytest test, and a GitHub Actions matrix YAML. No pseudocode without justification.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly numbered (How-to-use 1-7 mapped to Steps 1-8) and Step 5 provides output assertions as a validation checkpoint, but there is no explicit 'assertion fails -> fix -> re-run' feedback loop written into the step sequence; the recovery path is only implicit in the worked example. For batch CI regression runs the rubric expects an explicit feedback loop, so this caps below 3.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Steps 1-8, Worked example, Anti-patterns, Limitations, References) with a single one-level-deep external reference (the Papermill execute docs URL). References are shallow and easy to navigate, so the absence of a bundle is not penalized.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is concise, specific, and trigger-rich: it states concrete actions with executable CLI/API examples and an explicit 'Use when' clause. It cleanly satisfies all four dimensions including distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions (parameterize, execute, regression-test notebooks in CI) backed by a real CLI invocation 'papermill input.ipynb output.ipynb -p alpha 0.6' and the Python API 'pm.execute_notebook(...)'. It is not level 2 because it goes beyond naming the domain to enumerating specific executable actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (parameterize and execute notebooks in CI as regression tests, via CLI or API) and 'when' ('Use when notebooks must run as parameterized regression jobs in CI'). Matches the anchor-3 example with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are well covered: 'notebooks', 'Papermill', 'regression tests', 'CI', 'parameterized'. These map directly to how a user would phrase the need, not jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Papermill + parameterized-notebook-CI-regression-tests framing is a clear niche with distinct triggers, unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents