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.

68

Quality

86%

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

75%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, largely executable skill body: concrete templates, commands, a worked example, an explicit step sequence, and a clean routing table to six real reference guides. The main deductions are the duplicated example table, the missing script behind the CI-gate command, and the lack of an inline validation loop for the matrix artifact itself.

Suggestions

Ship scripts/build-risk-coverage.py in a scripts/ directory (or point the CI-gate example at an existing command) so the --fail-on-orphan-score example is executable as written.

Collapse the worked example's intake table by referencing the Step 2 table (or keep only the scored rows once) to remove the duplicated R-1..R-4 rows and the extra tokens they cost.

Add an inline validate-and-fix checkpoint after matrix intake (e.g., 're-score any row whose impact/likelihood lacks a documented rationale; re-review') so the authoring workflow has its own feedback loop instead of delegating all validation to the external review-checklist reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly high-value tables, templates, and steps that assume the reader's competence rather than noticeable verbosity — the deductions are that the worked example repeats the Step 2 intake table (R-1 through R-4) nearly verbatim and the Overview/Step 3 wiki quotes add quoted padding, i.e. minor instances that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Copy-ready guidance dominates: a complete markdown matrix template, a runnable grep for risk tags, a CI yaml gate, and a fully worked checkout-release example. It falls short of fully executable only because the CI gate invokes scripts/build-risk-coverage.py, which does not exist in the bundle (no scripts/ directory), so that command is not actually executable as shipped.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-8 are clearly sequenced and cross-referenced from the 'How to use' summary, with checkpoints present (score-threshold verdicts, orphan-risk detection, the CI gate failing on uncovered critical risks, and the cadence review loop). It misses the top anchor only because explicit validation of the authored matrix itself is delegated to the external review-checklist reference rather than an inline validate-and-fix step.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The 'Going deeper' routing table cleanly signals all six references, each verified to exist as a real one-level-deep guide. It misses the top anchor due to minor organization gaps: the Step 8 coverage-mapping workflow (8a-8e, roughly 75 lines) is inlined at a depth comparable to the separate reference guides, and the body references a scripts/build-risk-coverage.py that is absent from the bundle.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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 dense, explicit description that clearly names the artifact, its structure, the supporting methods, and a concrete 'Use for...' trigger list. Third-person voice is maintained throughout. Its only weaknesses are mild: a few common user phrasings (risk assessment/analysis) are missing and the description is long, listing bundle contents that add tokens without adding trigger value.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"risk matrix and risk register authoring, likelihood x impact scoring, risk storming, calibration, and risk-to-test coverage mapping" plus the concrete artifact shape ("feature, category, impact 1-5 by likelihood 1-5, score; heatmap; mitigations with owners and due dates") lists multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage, matching the top anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' anchor below it.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both what and when are explicit and concrete: "Produces the per-feature / per-release matrix artifact..." and "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", exactly matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are well covered ("risk matrix", "risk register", "risk storming", "FMEA", "test coverage", "risk-based testing"), but common variations like "risk assessment" or "risk analysis" are absent, fitting 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (risk-based-testing artifacts) with distinct triggers and even positions the adjacent requirements-side skill as a separate complement ("traceability-matrix-builder"), giving minimal conflict 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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents