56 skills · sorted by relevance
Review game code for architecture, coding standards, testability, and performance concerns. Get findings tied to specific code, checks against recorded design decisions, and a report separating required fixes from optional improvements.
Review EXISTING test code for quality, smells, and testability issues. Detects test smells across six dimensions — readability, reliability, diagnostic value, design, AI-generated, and coverage — analyzes testability of application code, and backs the qualitative smells with mutation testing. Use when: "review my tests," "test quality audit," "test smells," "testability analysis," "are these tests any good." Not for: generating new tests — use `ai-test-generation`. Not for: testing AI features in your product — use `ai-system-testing`. Related: unit-testing, shift-left-testing, coverage-analysis, ai-test-generation.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Guide for Private and Internal member testing strategies. Use when you need to test private or internal members, configure InternalsVisibleTo, or evaluate testability design. Covers design-first thinking, reflection testing, strategy pattern refactoring, AbstractLogger pattern, and decision frameworks. Keywords: private method testing, internal testing, InternalsVisibleTo, reflection testing, GetMethod BindingFlags, Meziantou.MSBuild.InternalsVisibleTo, testability design, strategy pattern refactoring, testability
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Make C# code testable when it directly uses static services such as time, files, or processes. It introduces existing abstractions or minimal wrappers, supplies dependency registration, and demonstrates tests with controlled substitutes for real resources.
Replace C# static calls for time, files, or environment values with existing abstractions that tests can substitute. Update construction and affected tests within a defined scope, while preserving read counts, evaluation order, date-time semantics, and existing static callers.
Scan C# code for dependencies on clocks, files, environment settings, and other resources that make tests difficult. Get source locations, consistent counts, and suggested abstractions, interfaces or providers that let tests control those dependencies.
DO NOT USE when the target already consumes an injected interface or built-in abstraction such as IFileSystem or TimeProvider, even if the request says "generate a wrapper"; no new wrapper is needed. Use only when C# source calls an ambient/static dependency and no injectable seam exists: first-time TimeProvider, IHttpClientFactory, or System.IO.Abstractions adoption; minimal Environment/Console/Process wrappers; IProcessRunner; DI registration; or an ambient seam that preserves a static API. Exclude static detection (detect-static-dependencies), migration to an existing/registered abstraction (migrate-static-to-wrapper), one blocked behavior plus deterministic tests (testability-obstacle), and general interface design.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
ALWAYS USE when asked to migrate, replace, or make testable existing C# static calls with a named wrapper or built-in abstraction: DateTime.UtcNow/Now or DateTimeOffset.UtcNow to TimeProvider/IClock, File.* to IFileSystem or an existing store such as ITextFileStore, and Environment.* to an existing reader such as IEnvironmentReader. Covers scoped files/projects, constructor injection, replacing temp-file or process-environment tests with fakes, "already registered" abstractions, and static classes whose callers/signatures must stay unchanged. Preserves DateTimeKind and call count. DO NOT USE for finding statics (detect-static-dependencies), choosing/designing a new wrapper (generate-testability-wrappers), behavior tests with no chosen seam (testability-obstacle), or test-framework migration.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Applies hexagonal architecture isolating domain from infrastructure. Use when designing systems where testability and port/adapter separation are priorities.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Move quality earlier in the development lifecycle. Covers dev/QA pairing patterns, Three Amigos sessions, TDD facilitation (Red-Green-Refactor), PR review checklists for testability, and Definition of Done with quality gates. Includes shift-left maturity model for team assessment. Use when: "shift left," "TDD," "dev-QA pairing," "definition of done," "testability," "quality culture," "QA in sprint planning." Not for: writing the unit tests themselves — use unit-testing; automated PR test-quality review at scale — use ai-qa-review; multi-quarter QA direction or roadmap — use test-strategy. Related: unit-testing, ai-qa-review, test-strategy.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Design and write QA test artifacts - test cases, test plans, acceptance criteria, API test specs, and PR testability reviews. Use this skill whenever a QA engineer or SDET needs to translate requirements, user stories, or feature specs into structured test documentation. Trigger on phrases like "write test cases", "create a test plan", "define acceptance criteria", "review this PR for testability", "write API test specs", "test coverage for this feature", "what should we test", "how do we test this", or any request to structure what and how to test before execution begins. Also trigger when a developer asks "is this testable?" or a PM asks "what are the edge cases?".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when surfacing architectural friction and proposing deepening refactors (shallow modules → deep modules) for testability and AI-navigability. Triggers on "improve architecture", "find deepening opportunities", "where is this codebase shallow", "architecture review". Emits structured candidates + precise patches; delegates ALL rendering to mk:preview. NOT for diagram/HTML rendering (see mk:preview); NOT for trade-off deliberation (see mk:party); NOT for plan critique (see mk:plan-ceo-review).
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
4人の異なる専門家ペルソナ（20年ベテランエンジニア、TDDエキスパート、Clean Codeエキスパート、バグハンター）で ソースコードを批判的にレビューするスキル。設計判断、テスト容易性、可読性、バグ検出の観点から コードの問題を検出し、改善提案を行う。Python/JavaScriptに対しては追加のチェックポイントを適用。 バグハンターは状態遷移、例外パス、依存関係、非同期競合に特化し、本番環境での問題を事前に検出する。 Use when reviewing source code from multiple expert perspectives to find design flaws, testability issues, code quality problems, and runtime bugs. Triggers: "critical code review", "multi-persona code review", "expert code review", "code quality assessment", "find bugs".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Guide substantial Swift changes in cmux with rules for package boundaries, dependency direction, state management, concurrency, and API documentation. Structure code so public package types can be tested without launching the app.
Add, repair, and strengthen tests for existing code using the project's testing framework. Covers regression cases, boundary conditions, flaky tests, and coverage gaps, with validation that links requested behaviors to specific tests.
Make specific C# behavior testable by adding a minimal way to replace time, randomness, or other external dependencies. Preserve public APIs and production behavior, then run repeatable tests without real file access or waiting.
Configure dependency injection in .NET MAUI, a way to supply objects with the services they need. Covers service registration, instance lifetimes, page and ViewModel constructors, Shell navigation, platform implementations, and test substitutions.
Comprehensive guide for dependency injection (DI) in Golang. Covers why DI matters (testability, loose coupling, separation of concerns, lifecycle management), manual constructor injection, and DI library comparison (google/wire, uber-go/dig, uber-go/fx, samber/do). Use this skill when designing service architecture, setting up dependency injection, refactoring tightly coupled code, managing singletons or service factories, or when the user asks about inversion of control, service containers, or wiring dependencies in Go. For a specific DI library, → See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-google-wire`, `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-uber-dig`, `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-uber-fx`, or `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-samber-do` skills.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Critical Akka.NET best practices including EventStream vs DistributedPubSub, supervision strategies, error handling, Props vs DependencyResolver, work distribution patterns, and cluster/local mode abstractions for testability.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the user mentions SwiftUI architecture review, separation of concerns, testability issues, or "logic in view" problems.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Requirements quality critique dimensions for peer review - confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Design or improve module interfaces using deep-module heuristics. Use when deciding where a seam belongs, reducing caller-facing complexity, improving testability or navigability, or comparing module designs.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
ALWAYS USE for test work that requires changes: write, add, generate, repair, or strengthen tests for existing code in xUnit, MSTest, NUnit, pytest, Vitest/Jest, Go, or another framework. Includes regression cases, failing or flaky tests, coverage-driven additions, and audit-then-fix requests. Focused work stays direct; broad or multi-stage work invokes test-engineer. DO NOT USE for only running tests, analysis-only audits, framework/platform migrations, a test blocked on a missing production seam (testability-obstacle), or MSTest API/configuration corrections that do not design new cases (writing-mstest-tests). Within an active test-engineer pipeline, reuse supplied guidance and do not re-enter this skill.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.