Name: testland/qa-okr-author
Rating: 75.2 (1 reviews)
Author: testland

testland/qa-okr-author

Build-an-X workflow that drafts a QA team's quarterly OKR set - one to three Objectives, each with 3 - 5 measurable Key Results - from the team's current state (risk matrix, defect-trend narrative, test-run history, test-pyramid balance, compliance coverage). Every numeric target cites its source artifact (e.g., a defect-trend baseline's 2026-Q1 escape rate). QA-specific by design - generic OKR generators (Tability, Asana, ClickUp) don't know test metrics; the differentiation is the domain. Produces the OKR set itself - not the test-strategy document it sits inside, and not the risk-score calibration behind the baselines. Use at the start of each quarter to draft the OKR set the manager edits and the team commits to.

Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

85%

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

The body is a well-structured, actionable workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and proper progressive disclosure to two real reference files. Its main weakness is conciseness: the committed/aspirational grading rule and basic OKR framing are repeated across sections rather than stated once and referenced.

Suggestions

State the Doerr 0.7/1.0 committed-vs-aspirational rule once in the Overview and reference it thereafter, removing its restatement in Step 3, Step 6, and the Anti-patterns table.

Trim the Overview's definition of 'an Objective is a concrete, inspirational goal and each Key Result is measurable success criteria' — Claude already knows OKR basics; keep only the skill-specific committed/aspirational output framing.

Consolidate the repeated '100% consistently met means OKRs are not aspirational enough' guidance into a single callout to reduce token cost.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and actionable, but the Doerr 0.7/1.0 grading rule and '100% means not aspirational enough' are restated across the Overview, Step 3, Step 6, and Anti-patterns, and the Overview explains what an Objective/KR is (concepts Claude knows); could be tightened without losing clarity.	2 / 3
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, copy-paste-ready templates (Step 3 KR table, Step 4 audit table, Step 5 alignment table) filled with specific real examples (e.g. 'filter(severity=P1, found_in=production)', real baselines), which per the scoring notes is not penalized for lacking code.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Six numbered steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: Step 1 halts with 'MISSING_BASELINE' and Step 4 flags '[BASELINE_NEEDED]' and excludes the KR from the committed set, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview that points to verified, one-level-deep references (references/okr-shape-catalog.md and references/worked-example.md, both real files), with content appropriately split and clearly signaled links.	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 specific, complete, and distinctive: it states concrete actions, names natural QA-OKR trigger terms, gives an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and carves out a clear QA-domain niche against generic OKR tools. It uses third-person voice throughout, so no voice penalty applies.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions ('drafts a QA team's quarterly OKR set', 'one to three Objectives, each with 3 - 5 measurable Key Results', 'Every numeric target cites its source artifact') plus the five named input sources, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (drafts the QA OKR set with cited numeric targets) and when ('Use at the start of each quarter to draft the OKR set the manager edits and the team commits to.'), with an explicit 'Use...' trigger so it is not capped at 2.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural terms a QA manager would say ('quarterly OKR set', 'Objectives', 'Key Results', 'draft the OKR set') plus competitor names (Tability, Asana, ClickUp); not a 2 because common variations are well covered.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Declares a clear QA-specific niche ('QA-specific by design - generic OKR generators... don't know test metrics') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling skills ('not the test-strategy document it sits inside, and not the risk-score calibration').	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation