BC app-e2e-tests
Use when writing, changing, reviewing, or debugging Playwright e2e tests in packages/app/e2e (regression keepers and user stories). Covers the mocked opencode server harness and the Bun static server, per-test isolation, page-load and route cost, the suite-wide service-worker block, races with first mount, hover, measurement, clock, dialogs and shortcuts, projects, shards and worker scheduling, rehearsing Windows timing locally, and diagnosing a CI flake from its artifacts. Not for Storybook component tests or e2e/performance benchmarks.
Skill for Playwright e2e tests in the app: handles writing, modifying, and debugging regression tests and user stories. Covers the mocked opencode server, Bun static host, per-test isolation, page load, service-worker blocking, mount races, hover, measurements, clocks, dialogs, shortcuts, projects, shards, and worker scheduling. Includes Windows timing rehearsal and CI flake diagnosis from artifacts.
Grade B: no critical issues, 82% quality. Single file, 4672 tokens. Works across all platforms from Claude to OpenCode. Doesn't cover Storybook or performance benchmarks, but sufficient for regular e2e runs. Install if your project already uses Playwright and you need guidance on local race conditions and CI artifacts.
Covers the mocked opencode server harness and the Bun static server, per-test isolation, page-load and route cost, the suite-wide service-worker block, races…
As a process C 50/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- 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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 50/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 10 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4672 tokens
- 100Steps. 101 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (13 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 543: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 101 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.