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. Bundles the change-shape classifier (pure-logic / service-layer / ui-heavy / data-heavy from git-history path and content signals, with the relative per-layer cost model) as a reference, so the shape distribution the estimate consumes can be produced here too. 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, or when a change set needs its shape classified before planning.

72

Quality

91%

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 a well-structured, highly actionable estimation workflow with clean progressive disclosure to three real reference files. Its main weakness is mild redundancy where the differentiation boundary and symbol definitions are restated across multiple sections.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'shape in, hours and owners out' boundary so it is stated once in the Differentiation axis section rather than echoed in the Overview and Anti-patterns table.

Drop the prose redefinition of a/m/b in Step 2 since the symbol table already defines them, keeping only the citational context.

Trim overlap between the Anti-patterns table and the Limitations list by keeping failure fixes in Anti-patterns and moving pure scope caveats to Limitations.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and dense with practical content, but the shape-in/hours-out boundary and the a/m/b definitions are restated across the Overview, Differentiation axis, and Anti-patterns sections, and the Anti-patterns table overlaps the Limitations list.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: PERT and variance-sum formulas in copy-paste blocks, concrete risk-weight and ledger-category tables, a six-step Delphi sequence, and an ordered seven-section output format.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints (force one risk-1 and one risk-3, six mandatory ledger categories, capacity flags) and a feedback loop (recompute affected rows when an assumption breaks rather than pad).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is an overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to change-shape-classifier.md, worked-example.md, and effort-estimate-output-template.md, all of which exist as real bundle files.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

The description is specific, complete, and well-differentiated, naming concrete outputs and an explicit Use-when trigger. Trigger term coverage is strong but could add a few more synonymous phrasings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions (PERT three-point estimate as ranges, six-category assumptions ledger, per-layer ownership split, bundled change-shape classifier) with comprehensive coverage of what the skill produces.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (produces ranges, ledger, ownership split, classifier) and when via a concrete 'Use when' clause with specific trigger scenarios.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('epic', 'release', 'sprint', 'test capacity', 'testable areas', 'change set', 'shape classified') that practitioners would say, though a few common synonyms are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (hours and ownership estimation) and explicitly draws boundaries ('Does not choose which tests to run or how deep coverage should go'), minimizing overlap with adjacent testing skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents