CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/risk-matrix

The risk-based testing (RBT) umbrella: risk matrix and risk register authoring, likelihood x impact scoring, risk storming, calibration, and risk-to-test coverage mapping. Produces the per-feature / per-release matrix artifact (structured intake: feature, category, impact 1-5 by likelihood 1-5, score; heatmap; mitigations with owners and due dates), supporting lightweight and heavyweight (FMEA / Cost of Exposure) methods per RBT canon, plus a risk coverage mapping workflow that proves which tests, cases, or monitors back each registered risk. references/ carries the product-risk and project-risk register variants, the risk-storming facilitation guide, matrix calibration against observed defect data, and a register review checklist. Use for any risk-based-testing artifact: building a matrix or register, running a risk-storming session, calibrating ratings against defects, or mapping risks onto test coverage.

69

Quality

87%

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

78%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-structured, actionable skill body with concrete templates, commands, and a clear step sequence backed by real one-level-deep reference files. The main gaps are the absent scripts/build-risk-coverage.py invoked in the CI example and slightly implicit error-recovery loops.

Suggestions

Either add scripts/build-risk-coverage.py to the bundle or replace the CI example's invocation with the concrete grep/depth logic the body already describes, so the executable path is complete.

Spell out the validate→fix→retry loop after the Step 8 CI gate (e.g., 'on failure: triage the orphan risk, add coverage or accept the risk, then re-run the gate') to make the recovery path explicit.

Trim the Overview Wikipedia quote to a one-line framing so the body leans even more on Claude's existing RBT knowledge.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient: tight tables, a fill-in matrix template, and lean 'see references/…' pointers assume Claude's competence. Not 5 because the Overview's Wikipedia quote and some framing prose are mild padding that could be trimmed; not 3 because the body is largely lean rather than noticeably verbose.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready guidance: a full markdown risk-matrix template, a concrete grep command for risk tags, and a CI YAML gate. Not 5 because the CI example invokes scripts/build-risk-coverage.py, which is not present in the bundle, leaving one executable path unresolved.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Steps 1–8 sequence with explicit validation in Step 8 (orphan detection, CI fail-on-orphan-score gate). Not 5 because the validate→fix→retry loop is implicit (the gate 'fails if' but the recovery steps are not spelled out); not 3 because checkpoints are genuinely present rather than missing.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Overview in SKILL.md with a well-signaled one-level-deep 'Going deeper' routing table; all six referenced files exist and content is appropriately split (heavyweight methods, calibration, storming, registers, checklist all live in references/). Not 4 because navigation and file split are clean with no nesting or buried references.

5 / 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, third-person description that concretely enumerates capabilities and gives explicit 'Use for' trigger guidance with multiple natural scenarios. Its only soft spot is trigger-term breadth, where the abstract-process domain leaves it just short of the synonyms-plus-extensions bar.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('risk matrix and risk register authoring, likelihood x impact scoring, risk storming, calibration, and risk-to-test coverage mapping') plus a structured intake spec (feature, category, impact 1-5 by likelihood 1-5, score; heatmap; mitigations with owners and due dates) — comprehensive coverage. Not 4 because coverage of concrete capabilities is thorough rather than having minor gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the RBT umbrella producing the per-feature/per-release matrix artifact) and when ('Use for any risk-based-testing artifact: building a matrix or register, running a risk-storming session, calibrating ratings against defects, or mapping risks onto test coverage.'). Not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit with concrete trigger phrases rather than merely present.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain terms are present with synonyms ('risk matrix', 'risk register', 'risk storming', 'calibration', 'risk-based testing'/'RBT') that users would say. Not 5 because the 5-anchor expects synonyms plus file extensions/extensions coverage, which this abstract-process domain lacks, leaving a few natural variations uncaptured.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear risk-based-testing niche with distinct triggers (matrix/register authoring, risk storming, calibration, coverage mapping) and minimal overlap with adjacent skills. Not 4 because the niche and triggers are sharply distinguished rather than having minor overlap risk.

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents