CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/winappdriver

Use when a native Windows app (UWP, WPF, WinForms, Win32) must be driven from a Selenium-style client in C#, Java, Python, Ruby or JS: WinAppDriver directly or through the Appium 2 Windows driver, capabilities, AccessibilityId and Name locators, and Windows CI runners. C#-only: flaui-tests.

Quality

88%

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

82%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 overview: a clear step sequence, executable code for both invocation paths, an anti-patterns table, and honest limitations with maintenance status. The main gaps are the absence of explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow and cross-skill references cited by name only without resolvable paths.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the "How to use" sequence, e.g. after launching the service: verify it prints 'Press ENTER to exit.' before declaring capabilities, and link the anti-patterns table as the error-recovery step for session-creation failures.

Resolve or qualify the bare cross-skill citations: give "desktop-test-strategy-reference" and "junit-xml-analysis" a path or clarify they are sibling skills, so the navigation pointers are actionable.

Tighten conciseness by trimming the parenthetical section-name echoes in "How to use" and reducing the repeated inline citation markers like "([wadauth][wadauth])" in the capabilities table.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence (no explaining what Selenium or UIA trees are), with time-sensitive details like "v1.2.1, published 2020-11-05" and "has not been maintained since 2022" correctly confined to the Limitations section. It falls short of anchor 5 because the "How to use" list partially duplicates section names and repeated citation clutter like "([wadauth][wadauth])" could be trimmed, but it is well above anchor 3's 'some unnecessary explanation'.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout: the service launch command, a complete C# worked example (capabilities, FindElementByAccessibilityId, SendKeys, Quit), the Appium install/run commands including "appium driver run windows install-wad", JSON and Python client examples, and a capabilities table. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5; anchor 4's 'minor gaps' do not apply.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

"How to use" lays out a clear 5-step sequence (Install + enable, Launch the service, Declare session capabilities, Worked example, CI runner + parse TRX/JUnit) with each step mapped to a detailed section. It misses anchor 5 because validation is implicit rather than wired into the steps — the readiness signal "The service prints 'Press ENTER to exit.'" and the anti-patterns table exist but are not explicit checkpoints — while clearly exceeding anchor 3's missing-checkpoint level.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Both inline references are real, one-level-deep files (references/locators-and-ci.md and references/gestures-hooks-and-ci.md, which point back to SKILL.md rather than nesting further) and each is well-signaled with a description of its contents. It stops short of anchor 5 because "desktop-test-strategy-reference" and "junit-xml-analysis" are cited repeatedly by bare name with no path, leaving unresolvable navigation pointers; it is still well above anchor 3's buried or unclearly signaled references.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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 explicitly answers both what (WinAppDriver direct or via the Appium 2 Windows driver, capabilities, locators, CI runners, flaui-tests) and when (native Windows app driven from a Selenium-style client in listed languages), with concrete, domain-accurate trigger terms. The only softness is that capabilities are enumerated as topics rather than action verbs, and a few natural phrasings like 'desktop automation' are absent.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"must be driven from a Selenium-style client" plus "WinAppDriver directly or through the Appium 2 Windows driver, capabilities, AccessibilityId and Name locators, and Windows CI runners" lists several concrete, specific capabilities with only minor gaps. It sits between anchors 4 and 5 — more comprehensive than anchor 4's 'minor gaps' but not the anchor-5 pattern of multiple explicit action verbs, so it scores below 5 and well above anchor 3's 1-2 concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

"Use when a native Windows app (UWP, WPF, WinForms, Win32) must be driven from a Selenium-style client in C#, Java, Python, Ruby or JS" is an explicit, specific when-clause, and the colon list ("WinAppDriver directly or through the Appium 2 Windows driver, capabilities, AccessibilityId and Name locators, and Windows CI runners") explicitly states the what with concrete triggers. This matches anchor 5; anchor 4's caveat that the 'when' could be more explicit does not apply, and the 'Use when' clause means the anchor-3 cap for missing triggers is irrelevant.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"native Windows app (UWP, WPF, WinForms, Win32)", "Selenium-style client", "WinAppDriver", "Appium 2 Windows driver", and "Windows CI runners" are exactly the terms a user with this need would naturally say. Good keyword coverage but missing common phrasings like 'desktop automation' or 'Windows UI testing', so it falls just short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage while clearly exceeding anchor 3's partial coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"native Windows app (UWP, WPF, WinForms, Win32)" combined with "WinAppDriver" and "Appium 2 Windows driver" carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers, minimal overlap with generic Selenium/web-testing skills. Clear match to anchor 5; anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' is a weaker fit since the Windows-native-app scope is unambiguous.

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