CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/test-effort-estimation

Turns a list of testable areas plus a change-shape distribution into a PERT three-point test effort estimate, reporting every row as a range around the expected value rather than a single number, requiring a named assumptions ledger across six mandatory categories, and recommending a per-layer ownership split across developer, automation, and exploratory roles. Owns the hours and the ownership recommendation only: it consumes a change-shape distribution rather than producing one, and it does not choose which tests to run or how deep coverage should go. Use when an epic or release has been broken into testable areas and someone is about to commit test capacity for a sprint.

75

Quality

94%

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%

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

A well-structured, highly actionable methodology skill with a clear five-step workflow, validation checkpoints, and properly split one-level references. Its only weakness is verbosity - rhetorical emphasis is repeated across sections where a single statement would carry the point.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'distribution, not a commitment' message into a single canonical statement; it currently recurs in Step 4, the Output format, the template, and the anti-patterns.

Trim editorial flourishes like 'It is a guess with a decimal point' that add tone but not guidance.

Move the row-by-row worked arithmetic fully into the reference (it already is) and consider shortening the inline Limitations bullets, several of which restate points made in the steps.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely lean domain knowledge Claude lacks (PERT formulas, Wideband Delphi sequence, IRS IRM pillars), but rhetorical flourishes such as 'An estimate without a ledger is not an estimate. It is a guess with a decimal point.' and the 'distribution, not a commitment' point repeated across Steps, Output, and the template could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete executable guidance throughout - explicit PERT formulas 'E = (a + 4m + b) / 6', a six-category ledger table with example entries, a default ownership-split table, three allocation rules, and a filled output template - meeting the copy-paste-ready anchor for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Five numbered steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ('An area with no risk weight is not estimable', 'Force at least one risk-1 and one risk-3', 'all six categories present') and a feedback loop ('Change the input and recompute the affected rows' rather than padding).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview points to two real one-level-deep references ([references/worked-example.md] and [references/effort-estimate-output-template.md]); the detailed arithmetic and the filled template are appropriately split out and well-signaled with markdown links.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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 highly specific, well-bounded description that states multiple concrete actions, an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and a sharp ownership boundary separating it from neighbouring skills. Both the what and the when are answered with natural trigger terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions - 'Turns a list of testable areas plus a change-shape distribution into a PERT three-point test effort estimate', 'reporting every row as a range', 'requiring a named assumptions ledger across six mandatory categories', 'recommending a per-layer ownership split' - matching the anchor that enumerates several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what (the four concrete actions in the first sentence) and when (the explicit 'Use when...' clause), matching the anchor for explicit triggers on both axes.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger clause 'Use when an epic or release has been broken into testable areas and someone is about to commit test capacity for a sprint' covers natural terms a user would say - epic, release, test capacity, sprint - rather than only jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The boundary statement 'Owns the hours and the ownership recommendation only: it consumes a change-shape distribution rather than producing one, and it does not choose which tests to run' carves out a clear niche unlikely to fire an adjacent skill.

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