Skip to content

feat: optimize tdd skill (89% → 99%)#2

Open
rohan-tessl wants to merge 1 commit into
mfranzon:mainfrom
rohan-tessl:improve/skill-review-optimization
Open

feat: optimize tdd skill (89% → 99%)#2
rohan-tessl wants to merge 1 commit into
mfranzon:mainfrom
rohan-tessl:improve/skill-review-optimization

Conversation

@rohan-tessl
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@rohan-tessl rohan-tessl commented Apr 24, 2026

Hullo @mfranzon 👋

I ran your skills through tessl skill review at work and found some targeted improvements. Here's the full before/after:

Skill Review Score Card

Skill Before After Change
tdd 89%* 99% +10%

*Note: The raw "before" score was 15% because the frontmatter used non-standard field names (skill: instead of name:, trigger: instead of description:), which blocked the LLM judge entirely. I fixed the field names first to get a meaningful 89% baseline, then optimized from there.

Changes made

Frontmatter fixes:

  • Renamed skill: to name: (standard field)
  • Renamed trigger: to description: (standard field)
  • Expanded description with concrete actions: "Writes failing tests, implements minimal passing code, runs the full test suite, and suggests refactoring"

Content improvements (conciseness):

  • Removed repeated pause/no-pause rules from the Rules section that were already stated inline in the workflow steps
  • Tightened parenthetical explanations throughout (e.g., removed "this means either..." phrasing)
  • Simplified conditional phrasing in Phase 1 input type detection
  • Cut "no pause needed" / "no pause" redundancies from GREEN and REFACTOR sections

All domain expertise preserved — TDD methodology, Red-Green-Refactor workflow, language-specific configs, and decomposition patterns are untouched.

Honest disclosure — I work at @tesslio where we build tooling around skills like these. Not a pitch - just saw room for improvement and wanted to contribute.

Want to self-improve your skills? Just point your agent (Claude Code, Codex, etc.) at this Tessl guide and ask it to optimize your skill. Ping me - @popey - if you hit any snags.

Thanks in advance 🙏

Hullo @mfranzon 👋

I ran your skills through `tessl skill review` at work and found some targeted improvements. Here's the full before/after:

![Skill Review Score Card](score_card.png)

| Skill | Before | After | Change |
|-------|--------|-------|--------|
| tdd | 89%* | 99% | +10% |

*Note: The raw "before" score was 15% because the frontmatter used non-standard field names (`skill:` instead of `name:`, `trigger:` instead of `description:`), which blocked the LLM judge entirely. I fixed the field names first to get a meaningful 89% baseline, then optimized from there.

<details>
<summary>Changes made</summary>

**Frontmatter fixes:**
- Renamed `skill:` to `name:` (standard field)
- Renamed `trigger:` to `description:` (standard field)
- Expanded description with concrete actions: "Writes failing tests, implements minimal passing code, runs the full test suite, and suggests refactoring"

**Content improvements (conciseness):**
- Removed repeated pause/no-pause rules from the Rules section that were already stated inline in the workflow steps
- Tightened parenthetical explanations throughout (e.g., removed "this means either..." phrasing)
- Simplified conditional phrasing in Phase 1 input type detection
- Cut "no pause needed" / "no pause" redundancies from GREEN and REFACTOR sections

**All domain expertise preserved** — TDD methodology, Red-Green-Refactor workflow, language-specific configs, and decomposition patterns are untouched.

</details>

Honest disclosure — I work at @tesslio where we build tooling around skills like these. Not a pitch - just saw room for improvement and wanted to contribute.

Want to self-improve your skills? Just point your agent (Claude Code, Codex, etc.) at [this Tessl guide](https://docs.tessl.io/evaluate/optimize-a-skill-using-best-practices) and ask it to optimize your skill. Ping me - [@popey](https://github.com/popey) - if you hit any snags.

Thanks in advance 🙏
@rohan-tessl rohan-tessl marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2026 07:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant