CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/test-case-review-rubric

Scores an already-written test case against six per-case quality axes (objective specificity, precondition executability, step granularity, step abstraction level, expected-result observability, traceability validity) and six set-level axes (partition coverage, boundary coverage, duplication, orphan and uncovered requirements, tier shape, identifier consistency). Derives a per-case PASS / WEAK / FAIL verdict and a set verdict from it without averaging, and marks every threshold as either standard-backed (ISTQB glossary, ISTQB CTFL v4.0, ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3:2021) or practitioner convention (step-count ceiling, tier bands, provenance threshold). Assumes the case field list and field cardinality are already defined by a test-case anatomy reference and judges content quality only. Use when reviewing a batch of hand-written test cases before promoting them to a release suite or handing them to an automation engineer.

80

Quality

100%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

100%

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

A well-structured, dense rubric body that gives concrete axis definitions with explicit PASS/FAIL bars, gates scoring behind a presence check, and defers the worked example to a clearly signaled reference. It assumes domain competence and adds only what is not already obvious.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and dense with substantive, non-redundant content — it deliberately defers test-case anatomy to a reference rather than re-deriving it, and uses compact tables (axes, conventions, anti-patterns) instead of prose padding. Every section earns its place; it assumes Claude's competence throughout.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance — a Gate 0 presence table, per-axis PASS bar / FAIL trigger / basis tables, exact convention values ('Roughly 15 steps', tier percentages), and a fully worked before/after case — copy-paste ready rather than abstract direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Sequences the review explicitly — Gate 0 validation first (a case that fails is reported UNSCORABLE with no axis verdicts), then per-case axes, then set-level axes, then verdict derivation — with an explicit gating checkpoint and a 'Judgment calls' section providing rulings for error-recovery edge cases.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is an overview that splits the long worked example into a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ([references/worked-examples.md], verified present), keeping the body navigable and content appropriately separated.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

A strong, third-person description that states concrete capabilities, gives an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and stakes out a clearly differentiated niche. It lists the actual axes and verdict mechanics rather than vague claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names many concrete actions — 'Scores an already-written test case against six per-case quality axes (objective specificity, precondition executability, ...)' and 'Derives a per-case PASS / WEAK / FAIL verdict and a set verdict from it without averaging' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Scores ...', 'Derives ... verdict', 'marks every threshold ...') and when ('Use when reviewing a batch of hand-written test cases before promoting them to a release suite or handing them to an automation engineer'), matching the 'clearly answers both what AND when with explicit triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Surfaces natural phrasing a reviewer would actually say — 'reviewing a batch of hand-written test cases', 'promoting them to a release suite', 'handing them to an automation engineer' — with good coverage of common variations, matching the 'good coverage of natural terms' anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Carves a clear niche — judging the content quality of already-written test cases, explicitly distinct from test-case anatomy ('Assumes the case field list and field cardinality are already defined by a test-case anatomy reference') — with distinctive triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents