CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/test-design-scorecard

Use when a test diff needs a graded coaching review rather than a merge verdict: onboarding a new engineer, ramping up test discipline, or a quarterly per-author trend. Scores tests 1-5 on six design axes with explicit anchors and writes growth-framed feedback.

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 unusually well-constructed instruction skill: scoring is unambiguous, the workflow has real checkpoints and guardrails, and aggregation detail is properly deferred to a clean one-level reference. The single notable weakness is token efficiency — the grounding citations and concept explanations run longer than the operational content requires.

Suggestions

Trim the inline source quotations (e.g., the Axis 6 fifty-times-faster fake-database discussion and the multi-sentence Assertion Roulette / Shared Fixture quotes) to one-line citations; the anchor tables already carry the operational content.

Compress the 'What this owns, and what it does not' section — the table plus the boundary rule could be roughly halved without losing the ownership distinction.

Cut the overlap between the anti-patterns table and other sections (merge-gate, leaderboard, and eight-growth-items rows each restate rules already given in Feedback rules and Limitations).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with operational content (anchor tables, tiebreakers, feedback rules), but the repeated inline source quotations and concept restatements — e.g., Axis 6's fifty-times-faster fake-database discussion and multi-sentence xunitpatterns quotes — explain material Claude already knows and could be tightened to one-line citations.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: per-score anchor tables for all six axes, explicit tiebreakers ("count the Acts", "hide the body and read the name alone"), exact scoring arithmetic with divisor recording, phrasing examples for feedback, and a copy-paste-ready worked output example.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step procedure is clearly sequenced with an entry validation checkpoint ("If the output must block a merge, stop"), guardrails against scoring errors (n/a handling, whole-numbers-only, consistency cap, measure-don't-guess for setup time), and an anti-patterns table serving as a failure-mode checklist with fixes.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and keeps the core scoring content inline, while the rollup/trend detail is correctly split into references/trend-and-rollup-reporting.md — a real file, clearly signaled with descriptive links in two places, and exactly one level deep with no nested references.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 states a precise capability, uses an explicit "Use when" trigger with three concrete scenarios, and actively disambiguates itself from merge-gate review skills. The only weakness is minor — trigger synonym coverage (e.g., "test quality") could be slightly broader.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Concrete actions are explicitly stated ("Scores tests 1-5 on six design axes with explicit anchors and writes growth-framed feedback") in third-person voice, matching the several-specific-actions-with-minor-gaps anchor; the six axes themselves are not named, keeping it below comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

It opens with an explicit "Use when a test diff needs a graded coaching review rather than a merge verdict" clause listing three concrete trigger scenarios, and follows with a clear what-clause (scoring 1-5 on six axes, writing growth-framed feedback), cleanly matching the both-what-and-when-with-concrete-triggers anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say appear ("test diff", "coaching review", "onboarding a new engineer", "quarterly per-author trend"), giving good keyword coverage, though common variants like "test quality" or "score my tests" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"rather than a merge verdict" explicitly carves the skill apart from adversarial pass/fail review skills, and the graded-coaching niche is distinct; conflict risk with other test-review skills is minimal.

5 / 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