CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/regression-suite-selector

Use when the regression suite is so large that PR-time CI is the bottleneck. Builds a CI step that runs only tests affected by the PR's changed files (from coverage maps or Bazel rdeps), plus previously failing and new tests, while a periodic full run guards against a stale map.

Quality

88%

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

81%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 well-engineered, operationally dense skill body: sequenced steps with real validation and feedback loops, concrete code and commands, and an appropriately split one-level reference file for framework-specific detail. The main residual issues are minor — a few passages re-explaining git semantics Claude already knows, code fragments with unhandled paths, and a script-path comment pointing at a nonexistent file.

Suggestions

Trim the three-dot vs two-dot git diff explanation in Step 3 to a one-line reminder ('use ..., not .. — matches PR semantics') since Claude already knows diff-dot semantics; the anti-patterns table already covers the failure mode.

Complete the select_tests snippet so the ('FALLBACK', f) return is consumed (e.g. show the caller mapping it to the full-suite run), or note explicitly that the fallback is handled by the CI workflow in the reference file.

Fix the "# scripts/build_test_map.py" comment to match the actual bundle layout — the function is inline in SKILL.md and no scripts/ directory exists.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and lean — every section carries new operational content (fallback triggers, map inversion code, anti-patterns table) with no filler. Falls short of 5 because a few passages explain things Claude already knows, e.g. the three-dot vs two-dot git diff semantics lecture ("Three-dot diff is 'what changed on this branch since it diverged from main'...") and the Azure HTML/CSS aside.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates: real Python for build_map and select_tests, exact git commands with the correct three-dot syntax, a hard-coded fallback file list (pom.xml, package.json, Cargo.toml, Dockerfile), and a ready PR-comment template. Not 5: the snippets are fragments (no imports shown, the ('FALLBACK', f) return path is never handled) and the runnable CI workflow is deferred to the reference file.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation (Step 5's shadow full-suite run and T1/T2 comparison pattern), a genuine feedback loop ("Failures that didn't appear in PR runs reveal selection misses; investigate and update the map"), and the anti-patterns table serving as a checklist. Test selection is not destructive, and validation checkpoints are present regardless.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with a real, one-level-deep references/instrumentation-and-ci.md that is clearly signaled at both use sites ("Per-framework recipes ... live in references/instrumentation-and-ci.md"). Not 5: the code comment "# scripts/build_test_map.py" implies a script file that does not exist in the bundle (there is no scripts/ directory), a minor navigation gap.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 explicitly states when to use the skill with a concrete trigger condition (CI as the PR-time bottleneck) and comprehensively describes what it builds, including the selection policy and the safety-net full run. The only weakness is trigger vocabulary that leans on domain jargon (Bazel rdeps, coverage maps) rather than the plain phrases a user might say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "Builds a CI step that runs only tests affected by the PR's changed files (from coverage maps or Bazel rdeps), plus previously failing and new tests", and "a periodic full run guards against a stale map" — mechanism, selection set, and safety net are all explicit.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both halves: an explicit "Use when the regression suite is so large that PR-time CI is the bottleneck" trigger clause plus a detailed statement of what the skill builds. Matches the 5 anchor with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"regression suite" and "PR-time CI is the bottleneck" are natural phrases users would say, but "Bazel rdeps" and "coverage maps" are jargon and common variations like "slow tests" or "test suite takes too long" are missing. Better than partial coverage (3), just short of comprehensive synonyms (5).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (PR-time test selection via test impact analysis) with distinct triggers around CI bottleneck and regression suite size; minimal overlap risk with adjacent coverage/quality skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

On this page