Add Output Quality Validation to testing-skills-with-subagents and improve README #95
Conversation
Addresses critical gap: skill focused too much on time pressure scenarios and not enough on validating quality of output. Changes: - Added major "Output Quality Validation (CRITICAL)" section (~250 lines) - Distinguishes process compliance from output quality - Provides WITH vs WITHOUT comparison framework - Defines quality metrics for different skill types - Includes quality validation checklist - Warns about volume ≠ quality - Shows how to test real-world effectiveness - Integrates quality validation into RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle Updated: - Description to mention "produce quality output" - Testing Checklist with quality validation items in each phase This ensures skills are tested for effectiveness, not just compliance. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
WalkthroughDocumentation update to Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Tester
participant Skill
participant Validator
participant Metrics
rect rgba(135,206,235,0.12)
Note over Tester,Skill: RED — establish baseline (pressure + quality)
Tester->>Skill: run baseline tests (pressure scenarios)
Skill-->>Tester: outputs
Tester->>Validator: validate process compliance
Tester->>Metrics: measure baseline quality
end
rect rgba(144,238,144,0.12)
Note over Tester,Skill: GREEN — implement fixes, re-test
Tester->>Skill: run improved tests
Skill-->>Tester: new outputs
Tester->>Validator: validate improved process
Tester->>Metrics: measure improved quality
Tester->>Metrics: compute WITH vs WITHOUT comparisons
end
rect rgba(255,228,181,0.12)
Note over Tester,Skill: REFACTOR/Stay GREEN — final quality checkpoint
Tester->>Validator: final quality validation (pass/fail)
Validator-->>Tester: verdict + details
Tester->>Metrics: record final metrics & decision
end
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md (2)
178-178: Add hyphen to compound adjective."poor quality work" should be "poor-quality work" (hyphenated when used as a compound adjective before a noun).
- **Still produce poor quality work** ✗ + **Still produce poor-quality work** ✗
352-352: Consider replacing "under stress" with "under pressure" for consistency.Lines 352 and 354 use "under stress" which is flagged as potentially wordy. Since the document uses "pressure" extensively (pressure scenarios, pressure types, pressure testing), replacing "under stress" with "under pressure" would improve consistency and slightly improve conciseness:
- **Pressure testing alone:** Proves agent follows skill under stress + **Pressure testing alone:** Proves agent follows skill under pressure - **Both together:** Proves skill works under stress AND produces quality + **Both together:** Proves skill works under pressure AND produces qualityAlso applies to: 354-354
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md(4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md
[grammar] ~178-~178: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ...tions correctly ✓ - Still produce poor quality work ✗ Example: Testing ...
(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)
[style] ~352-~352: ‘under stress’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ing alone:** Proves agent follows skill under stress Quality testing alone: Proves skill...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_UNDER_STRESS)
[style] ~354-~354: ‘under stress’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...t Both together: Proves skill works under stress AND produces quality ### Example: Comp...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_UNDER_STRESS)
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md
245-245: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
251-251: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
257-257: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
267-267: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
297-297: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
309-309: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md (2)
166-415: Excellent addition of output quality validation framework—well-structured and highly practical.The new "Output Quality Validation (CRITICAL)" section is comprehensive and fills a genuine gap. The WITH vs WITHOUT comparison methodology, concrete quality metrics examples, and integration with RED-GREEN-REFACTOR are all valuable. The distinction between process compliance and output effectiveness is clearly articulated, and real-world examples make guidance actionable. The testing checklist updates (lines 568, 574, 585) align well with the new framework.
3-3: Description update effectively communicates the expanded scope.The updated description now explicitly mentions quality output validation alongside pressure testing, making it clear the skill covers both process compliance and effectiveness—an improvement over the previous version.
- Fix hyphenation: 'poor quality work' → 'poor-quality work' - Replace 'under stress' with 'under pressure' for consistency - Convert bold formatting to proper markdown headings (MD036) - Remove bold formatting from 'Volume ≠ Quality' line 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md (1)
581-581: Fix typo in checklist item.Line 581 has "ith" instead of "with":
- - [ ] Updated description ith violation symptoms + - [ ] Updated description with violation symptoms
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md(4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md
297-297: Multiple headings with the same content
(MD024, no-duplicate-heading)
309-309: Multiple headings with the same content
(MD024, no-duplicate-heading)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
skills/testing-skills-with-subagents/SKILL.md (2)
3-3: Comprehensive output quality validation framework well integrated.The new "Output Quality Validation (CRITICAL)" section effectively addresses the gap identified in the PR objectives—extending beyond process compliance to verify skill effectiveness through actual output quality. The additions:
- Clearly distinguish process compliance from output quality (lines 194–210)
- Provide concrete WITH vs WITHOUT comparison methodology (lines 214–238)
- Define skill-specific quality metrics with actionable examples (lines 245–261)
- Explain common pitfalls (e.g., volume ≠ quality, lines 267–291)
- Integrate quality checkpoints into the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR phases (lines 398–414)
- Update the testing checklist to include quality validation steps (lines 568, 574, 585)
The framework is methodical, grounded in real-world effectiveness testing, and maintains consistency with the TDD philosophy that underpins the skill. The section structure, examples, and checklists are clear and actionable.
Also applies to: 166-415, 568-568, 574-574, 585-585
266-268: Apply the suggested heading formatting to maintain document consistency.The file shows "Volume ≠ Quality" at line 267 is plain text, while all comparable subsections in the document (lines 251, 257, 265, 293, etc.) use level-4 heading syntax (
####). The suggested change correctly aligns this section with the established document structure and addresses the MD036 linting rule.#### Evaluate Output, Not Just Effort - Volume ≠ Quality + #### Volume ≠ Quality
- Fix typo: 'ith' → 'with' in REFACTOR checklist - Differentiate duplicate headings to resolve MD024 warnings - Add "Quality Metrics" suffix to first set of examples - Add "Effectiveness Test" suffix to second set of examples - Improves clarity and markdown lint compliance 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
|
Hi, Could you please provide a human-written description of what you're trying to do with this PR? What specific problem did you have, how does this PR address it, and what testing did you do? |
|
I was trying to use the |
2 participants
This PR enhances the testing-skills-with-subagents skill with a comprehensive Output Quality Validation framework and improves the README installation instructions.
Motivation and Context
The testing-skills-with-subagents skill was missing a critical validation dimension: output quality. While the skill effectively validated that agents follow processes under pressure (process compliance), it didn't validate whether the skill actually produces better work (output effectiveness).
This creates a false confidence problem: an agent can follow all steps, complete all checklist items, and still produce poor quality work. For example, an agent testing a "verification-before-completion" skill might claim "tests pass" without ever running them.
Additionally, the README installation instructions needed clearer formatting and step separation for better user experience.
How Has This Been Tested?
Breaking Changes
No breaking changes. This is purely additive:
Types of changes
Checklist
Additional context
The Output Quality Validation framework introduces:
This complements the existing pressure testing framework, ensuring skills are both pressure-resistant AND produce quality output.
Summary by CodeRabbit