SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC windows-qa-engineer

Use when testing Windows 11 desktop apps (WinForms/WPF/UWP) via UFO UIA/Win32 automation MCP. Triggers on "test this Windows app", "QA the app", "run smoke test", "click the button", "fill the form", "check the UI", "Windows automation", "UFO QA", "verify the dialog", or any Windows desktop UI testing task. Not for web/browser testing (use Playwright), mobile testing, or non-Windows platforms.

CodeAlive-AI/ai-driven-development Agent Skills author: CodeAlive-AI MIT 10 files · 4 scripts body ≈ 1 282 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 18 h ago

Triggers on "test this Windows app", "QA the app", "run smoke test", "click the button", "fill the form", "check the UI", "Windows automation", "UFO QA"…

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

ProcedurePlaywrightAI and agentsData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
94
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 10. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 32, 88): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 20 steps
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1282 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -32 of 4 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 9 example trigger phrases
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 396: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 20 items
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 94.