CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/quality-status-digest

Use when a weekly quality review, sprint check-in or quarterly portfolio review is due and the numbers already exist in CI, the tracker and the quarantine list. Computes pass rate, escaped defects and flake debt, rates each area red, amber or green, and rolls teams up into a portfolio view.

Quality

89%

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%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.

The body is an exemplary instruction-only skill: fully actionable formulas, thresholds and templates, a ten-step workflow with explicit handling for every missing-data case, and clean two-file progressive disclosure. Its one weakness is token efficiency — the same conventions-are-not-standards and never-recompute justifications are repeated across steps and then again in the Anti-patterns and Limitations tables.

Suggestions

State the "these cut points and weights are conventions, not standards" disclaimer once (e.g., in Step 4 or the overview) and drop the repeated restatements in Steps 3, 8 and 9, keeping only the one-sentence reasoning specific to each convention.

Trim the Anti-patterns table to entries not already enforced by a step rule — cancelled runs, recomputing at portfolio layer, and averaging statuses each restate a rule and its rationale verbatim from Steps 1, 6 and 4.

Merge the Limitations entries on DORA partiality and deployment-definition portability into the Step 2 DORA section, where the same caveats are already explained, to remove duplicated prose.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is skill-specific rather than padded with known concepts, but justification prose repeats noticeably: "practitioner conventions, not standards" is restated in Steps 3, 4, 8 and 9; the never-recompute rule appears in the Part 1 intro, Step 6, Step 10 and again in Anti-patterns; the Anti-patterns and Limitations tables largely restate rules already given in the steps. This fits the 3 anchor (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 2, since there is no generic over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: exact formulas (pass_rate, escape_rate, flake_debt_score), exact RAG cut-point tables with per-area thresholds, concrete constants (14-day staleness, weight 2, 20% capacity flag), a file naming pattern, a copy-paste digest-row example, and full output templates in a verified reference file. Matches the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Ten explicitly sequenced steps across two clearly separated altitudes, with an explicit checkpoint for every data failure mode: unknown deployment denominator → report raw count and say so; missing blast radius → [DATA NOT SUPPLIED]; no comparable prior period → baseline instead of default tags; tracker labelling gaps → Open items. This matches the 5 anchor (explicit validation steps and error-recovery guidance); 4 would require missing checkpoints, and none are evident.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body keeps the method while bulky material — verbatim DORA definitions and the full output templates — is split into two real, one-level-deep reference files, each linked with a stated purpose and verified on disk (references/dora-metrics.md, references/output-templates.md, 26 and 109 lines). Clear overview plus well-signaled, shallow references matches the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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: it pairs an explicit, scenario-rich "Use when" clause with a concrete, third-person action list that spans both altitudes of the skill. The only weaknesses are a few missing natural trigger synonyms and slight overlap risk with general sprint- or delivery-reporting skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full skill: "Computes pass rate, escaped defects and flake debt, rates each area red, amber or green, and rolls teams up into a portfolio view" — both the per-team and portfolio altitudes are covered with no generic filler. It fits the 5 anchor (comprehensive coverage) rather than 4, which would require a gap in the action list.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: an explicit "Use when a weekly quality review, sprint check-in or quarterly portfolio review is due..." trigger clause with three concrete scenarios, followed by a clear statement of what it computes and emits. Third person throughout ("Computes", "rates", "rolls"). Matches the 5 anchor; 4 would apply only if the "when" were vague or implicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like "weekly quality review", "sprint check-in", "quarterly portfolio review", "CI", "tracker" and "quarantine list" are present, but common variants a user might say ("quality report", "QA status", "test health") are missing. This matches the 4 anchor (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is well-pinned (existing CI/tracker/quarantine numbers → RAG digest → portfolio roll-up), but "sprint check-in" and "quality review" are phrases general sprint-reporting or delivery-metrics skills could also claim, creating minor overlap risk. Matches the 4 anchor (mostly distinct, minor overlap with closely related skills) rather than 5's minimal-conflict niche.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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