CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/qa-jd-author

Build-an-X workflow that authors a QA job description for a given role and seniority - responsibilities drawn from the ISTQB CTFL v4.0 split between the testing role (test analysis, design, implementation, execution) and the test management role (planning, monitoring and control, completion), a must-have versus nice-to-have skills split, and the screening signals a recruiter can apply to applications. The competency vocabulary matches `hiring-rubric-author`, so the JD a candidate reads and the rubric they are scored on describe the same role. This is the artifact that opens the role and attracts applicants - not the interview questions, not the scoring rubric, and not the post-hire ramp plan. Use when opening a QA / SDET / automation / test-lead / quality-manager requisition, before anything is posted - the JD is the upstream-most artifact of the hiring chain.

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

85%

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 authoring workflow with concrete counts, a worked example, and clear sequencing plus a length-check validation step. The weakest dimension is conciseness: the Overview duplicates the frontmatter's ISTQB split and carries long sourced quotes that could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Trim the Overview's two grounding paragraphs — the ISTQB testing-role vs test-management-role split is already in the frontmatter description; reduce to a one-line pointer plus the citation rather than re-quoting the syllabus.

Move the full worked-example JD (Step 5) into a reference file (e.g. references/example-jd.md) and keep only a short inline excerpt, which would both tighten the body and exercise progressive disclosure with an actual bundle file.

Compress the References section to one entry per source with a single verified URL rather than restating which sections were quoted.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but the Overview re-states the ISTQB role split already summarized in the frontmatter and quotes syllabus/Workable passages at length; the body could be tightened without losing clarity. Verbosity is accurate but still verbosity per the guideline.

2 / 3

Actionability

Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: concrete counts ('5 - 8 responsibility bullets', 'Must-haves: 4 - 6 items maximum', 'Nice-to-haves: 3 - 5 items'), example bullets, a full worked-example JD, and an anti-patterns table with explicit fixes — copy-paste ready guidance.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced (inputs → responsibilities → skills split → screening signals → assemble and length-check) with an explicit validation checkpoint in Step 5 (the 300 - 660 word length-check) and an anti-patterns table that functions as a verification checklist.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent), so scoring falls back to organization: the body is well-structured with clear sections and a References block of one-level-deep external links (ISTQB, Workable) plus named downstream skills, with no nested reference chains.

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.

A high-quality description: specific, complete with an explicit Use-when trigger, and clearly distinguished from sibling hiring-chain skills. Voice is third person throughout. The only minor concern is verbosity — it is a dense single paragraph — but every clause carries substance rather than fluff.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'authors a QA job description', responsibilities 'drawn from the ISTQB CTFL v4.0 split', a 'must-have versus nice-to-have skills split', and 'screening signals a recruiter can apply' — matching the level-3 anchor for several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (authors a JD with the ISTQB role split, skills split, and screening signals) and when ('Use when opening a QA / SDET / automation / test-lead / quality-manager requisition, before anything is posted'), satisfying the level-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when opening a QA / SDET / automation / test-lead / quality-manager requisition' clause covers the natural terms a hiring manager would say, with good breadth across role variants; not merely technical jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It explicitly carves the niche away from siblings — 'not the interview questions, not the scoring rubric, and not the post-hire ramp plan' — and ties vocabulary to `hiring-rubric-author`, making wrong-skill triggering unlikely.

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