본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

regression-proof

Fix a reported bug with a regression test that demonstrably fails on the original behavior and passes after the fix. Use when implementing a bug fix or checking whether a proposed fix actually addresses a reported failure. Not a general coverage audit or new-feature workflow.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md3.1 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Regression proof

A passing test is evidence for a fix only if it can distinguish the broken behavior from the intended behavior.

Steps

  1. Establish the reported failure, expected behavior, and authorized scope from the request, relevant code, and existing tests. Record the starting state, including uncommitted changes. Run the relevant baseline and reproduce the bug before editing when possible; distinguish a product failure from a broken test environment.
  2. Add the smallest regression test that exercises the real failing path and asserts the required outcome. Run it against the original behavior and verify that it fails for the reported reason, not an import error, missing dependency, or unrelated failure. Reuse an existing test if it already demonstrates this.
  3. Trace the cause and make a scoped fix when implementation is authorized. For review-only requests, assess the proposed fix without silently changing production code. Preserve the evidence from the original failure.
  4. Run the same regression test against the fixed behavior. If the fix existed before the test, compare with the original implementation in an isolated copy or worktree that preserves the relevant starting state. Do not reset the user's working tree. If an equivalent comparison cannot be made, report that limitation rather than claiming a verified before/after result.
  5. Check the neighboring behavior most likely to be affected. Where an incomplete fix could pass the reproducer, add a discriminating case. Use reference comparisons, bounded randomized checks, or performance measurements only when the failure mechanism warrants them; record seeds and conditions needed to reproduce results.
  6. Finish with the cause, fix or review finding, commands and observed before/after outcomes, adjacent checks, and remaining uncertainty. If the bug cannot be reproduced or expected behavior is unresolved, say what evidence is missing and avoid a speculative fix. Stop once the scoped claim is supported and relevant checks pass.

Guardrails

  • Never weaken assertions, change expected behavior merely to make a test pass, or mock away the boundary responsible for the bug.
  • Preserve existing tests and unrelated user changes. Keep comparison artifacts isolated; do not use destructive checkout or reset operations to recreate the original failure.
  • A missing dependency or unavailable original version is a verification limitation, not proof of correctness. Keep pre-existing failures separate from regressions caused by the fix.
  • Keep execution within the task's authorization. A local reproducer does not authorize production writes, external side effects, or an unrelated refactor.
  • A regression test establishes the tested behavior, not the absence of all bugs. This skill does not change the host's reasoning-effort setting.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Design tools, scripts, and CLIs that an agent will call, so the interface teaches its own use instead of a wall of prose and examples. Use when building an MCP server or tool definition, writing an agent-facing script, or when an agent keeps misusing a tool it already has.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3532026년 9월 28일 업데이트

Test a consequential technical assumption with a small, falsifiable experiment before committing to an approach. Use when a plan depends on uncertain runtime, integration, or data behavior that inspection alone cannot establish. Not for preference interviews or routine implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3532026년 9월 28일 업데이트

Surface the user's unknown unknowns before work starts. Use when the user is entering an unfamiliar codebase area, an unfamiliar domain (design, video, infra), or explicitly asks for a "blindspot pass" or to find their "unknown unknowns."

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3532026년 9월 28일 업데이트

Generate several genuinely different throwaway variations (designs, approaches, drafts) for the user to react to. Use when the user can only recognize what they want by seeing it — visual design, UX flows, naming, tone — or asks to brainstorm or prototype before building.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3532026년 9월 28일 업데이트

After a working session, produce a report on what changed plus a quiz the user must pass before merging. Use when the user asks "what did we actually do," wants to review a large change, or invokes a quiz before merge.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3532026년 9월 28일 업데이트

Audit the instructions an agent already carries — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, skills, tool descriptions — for contradictions, over-constraint, and duplication, then propose a cut list. Use when an agent ignores its own instructions, when a CLAUDE.md has grown bloated, or when the user asks to audit or rightsize their agent context.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3532026년 9월 28일 업데이트

Neeeophytee의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고