SKILLEMALL.ai

BD tdd

Test-Driven Development for coding and bug fixing. cycle - Red→Green→Refactor cycle, defining expected behavior, bug-fix TDD, anti-patterns [cycle.md], run - test execution workflow (environment detection→impact scope→execution→result reporting) [run.md], test-strategies - boundary value·equivalence partitioning·decision table·error guessing·path coverage test design techniques [test-strategies.md]. "TDD", "test first", "failing test", "doesn't work", "not working", "test design", "boundary value test", "test strategies", "equivalence partitioning", "bug fix", "run tests", "execute tests", "test run", "verify" triggers

ClawHub Agent Skills author: es6kr v0.3.4 MIT-0 7 files body ≈ 333 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

Test-Driven Development for coding and bug fixing.

As a process D 38/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: steps, result and completion, when it triggers

ProcedureSoftware developmentData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
B
88/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
71
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
D
38/100
Unfinished process
Steps w 15
0
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")

Process rating: all ten parameters 38/100

  • 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 333 tokens
  • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations

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

  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +3No numbered steps or checklist
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +4No input/output examples
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +5Description quotes 13 example trigger phrases
  • +3Description length 626: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 7 headings
  • +1License stated

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This TDD skill is not malicious, but it can push an agent into editing tests and running commands too early for broad requests like “verify.”
LLM: suspicious (high) · 10 Sept 2026