On the plus side, those tests are fairly extensive and brutal nowadays. They detect anomalies in cryptographic algorithms that were still used a decade ago, such as arc4random().
But one thing I hint at at the end is that I hope, and anticipate, to see more accurate quality measurement tools in the future.
If it passes the remainder on the first try, you might be on to something.
If it fails, you've got a problem: tweaking until it passes isn't going to help you.
After that, you try with the complete suite and unless the result reaches a predetermined passing criteria you declare the design as flawed and go back to step 1 rather than continuing to tweak (as the result of continued tweaking will inevitably be a pass even if the design is poor).
Unfortunately, high performance and even 'good random-like behavior' may be at odds with having a construct which is transparent enough to be able to justify its performance from analysis rather than running it. :(
One thing I did when designing random functions is run them against DieHarder and Practrand, but then also against SMHasher, you just have to use some construction to fold the key into the state. I think that's a useful somewhat orthogonal way to test. have you considered this?