SKILLEMALL.ai

AC test-strategy

Produce a multi-quarter QA strategy document. Covers scope, risk-based prioritization, test levels (unit/integration/E2E), pyramid analysis, entry/exit criteria, quality KPIs, tool selection rationale, CI scaling levers, and timeline planning. Output is an actionable strategy document, not a shelf document. Use when: "test strategy," "QA strategy doc," "testing approach," "QA roadmap," "multi-quarter QA direction." Not for: a single-sprint or single-release plan — use test-planning. Not for: identifying which areas carry the most risk — use risk-based-testing first. Related: risk-based-testing, qa-metrics, release-readiness, test-planning, test-reliability.

petrkindlmann/qa-skills Agent Skills author: petrkindlmann MIT 3 files body ≈ 6 026 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com analyzed 2 d ago

Produce a multi-quarter QA strategy document.

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

GeneratorPlaywrightData and analyticstype 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
Running it twice w 4
30
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 ≈ 6026 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 70): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions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
  • 30Running it twice. 18 mutating operations with no state check
  • 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 (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6026 tokens
  • 100Steps. 59 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place

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 5 example trigger phrases
  • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
  • +3Description length 665: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 23 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 59 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.