CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/test-design-scorecard

Use for any question or task about giving feedback on someone's tests or measuring a team's test quality over time, such as coaching a junior engineer or a quarterly per-author trend, rather than a merge verdict. Scores tests 1-5 on six design axes with explicit anchors and writes growth-framed feedback.

Quality

90%

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

92%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.

An exceptionally well-built instruction skill: concrete anchors and tiebreakers make every scoring decision executable, the workflow is sequenced with explicit stop-checks and noise guards, and the rollup layer is cleanly split into a real, one-level-deep reference. The only real cost is length, driven by quoted source passages that restate known concepts and a duplicated scoring-rule statement.

Suggestions

Trim the inline source quotes that restate well-known concepts (AAA, Shared Fixture, Assertion Roulette) to short citations, keeping full quotes only where they settle a 2-vs-4 tiebreaker.

State the file-score computation once in 'Computing the file score' and have 'How to use' step 4 cross-reference it instead of repeating the rules.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and functional (anchor tables, tiebreakers, anti-patterns, limitations), but the per-axis grounding paragraphs restate concepts Claude already knows (AAA, Shared Fixture, Assertion Roulette) through quoted source text, and 'How to use' step 4 duplicates the 'Computing the file score' section. This is efficient with minor over-explanation (anchor 4) rather than the noticeably padded anchor 3.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: whole-number anchor tables per axis, concrete tiebreaker procedures ('count the Acts', 'hide the body and read the name alone', 'cover the call to the system under test'), explicit arithmetic with the divisor convention, a banned-words list, and a copy-paste-ready worked example covering the common per-test case. This matches the top anchor for instruction skills.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step 'How to use' sequence is clearly ordered with explicit checkpoints: a stop-condition gate (step 1, 'If the output must block a merge, stop'), an n/a guard against guessing (step 3), and audit-trail recording of the divisor, plus noise-floor conventions (minimum 3 PRs, delta under 0.3) for the trend layer. It is a read-only scoring skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The split is appropriate and well-signaled: per-file scoring and feedback rules stay in SKILL.md, while the rollup/trend layer lives in references/trend-and-rollup-reporting.md, which exists, is one level deep, and matches its in-SKILL description. Both links are explicit markdown references, matching the clear-overview anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 that clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete coaching-oriented trigger scenarios and an explicit boundary against merge-gate usage. The main gaps are unnamed axes and a few missing common trigger synonyms, which keep specificity, trigger coverage, and distinctiveness at 4 rather than 5.

Suggestions

Name the six axes briefly (e.g., 'AAA phase separation, single-responsibility, naming, fixture coupling, magic literals, setup time') to close the specificity coverage gap.

Add one or two common user phrasings such as 'test review' or 'test design feedback' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Keep the 'rather than a merge verdict' contrast; it is what does the distinctiveness work against competing review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Scores tests 1-5 on six design axes with explicit anchors and writes growth-framed feedback" names two concrete, specific actions with the scale detail, but the six axes themselves are not named, leaving minor gaps in coverage. This exceeds anchor 3 (more than 1-2 generic actions) but falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the trigger clause "Use for any question or task about giving feedback on someone's tests or measuring a team's test quality over time, such as coaching a junior engineer or a quarterly per-author trend" gives concrete 'when' phrasing, and "Scores tests 1-5 on six design axes with explicit anchors and writes growth-framed feedback" gives a clear 'what'. This matches the anchor-5 example structure.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would actually say are present: "giving feedback on someone's tests", "measuring a team's test quality", "coaching a junior engineer", "quarterly per-author trend". Common variations such as "test review" or plain "test quality" are missing, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The carve-out "rather than a merge verdict" explicitly separates it from a pass/fail merge-review skill, giving a distinct niche. However, "any question or task about giving feedback on someone's tests" is broad and could still overlap with a general test-conventions review skill, matching anchor 4 (minor overlap risk with closely related skills) rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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