SKILLEMALL.ai

AC qa-project-bootstrap

Onboard a new QA engineer to an existing codebase, or audit an existing test architecture. Produces a 30-day ramp plan: codebase orientation, framework walkthrough, test architecture audit, mentorship pairing, and first-test guidance. Use when: "QA onboarding," "new tester," "ramp up," "test architecture audit," "first 30 days," "QA mentorship," "joining QA team." Not for: setting up QA on a brand-new project from scratch — use `qa-start`. Related: qa-start, qa-project-context, shift-left-testing, ai-qa-review.

petrkindlmann/qa-skills Agent Skills author: petrkindlmann MIT 3 files body ≈ 5 021 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com analyzed 2 d ago

Onboard a new QA engineer to an existing codebase, or audit an existing test architecture.

As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, progress reporting

AnalyzerPlaywrightSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
56/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Result and completion w 14
40
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
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: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning body-long SKILL.md body ≈ 5021 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 144): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100

  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5021 tokens
  • 85Steps. 101 steps, 1 vague phrases
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
  • low 13 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
  • low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable

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
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
  • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
  • +3Description length 516: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 41 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 101 items
  • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
  • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
  • +1License stated

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.