본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

test-blindspots

Find consequential behavior that a passing test suite does not establish, using focused exploratory checks. Use when the user asks what green tests miss or wants confidence in test coverage for a specific change. Not a general code review, routine test run, or debugging workflow for an already failing test.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md2.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Test blindspots

Passing tests establish their assertions under their setup. The gap to investigate is where the implementation and its tests share the same untested assumption.

Steps

  1. Establish the intended behavior and scope from the request, specification, changed code, callers, and relevant tests. Run the relevant baseline when possible. If it is already failing, report that limitation rather than describing it as green.
  2. Compare important behavior with what the tests actually assert. Look for a concrete gap: a mock replacing the boundary being claimed, an untested transition, a missing consumer expectation, or an invariant only exercised on the happy path. Choose by consequence and evidence, not by a generic checklist or coverage percentage.
  3. For each selected gap, state the question and design a small exploratory probe that can distinguish correct from incorrect behavior. Use existing tooling and isolated data. Prefer the actual component over a mock when the mock is the source of uncertainty.
  4. Execute the bounded probes within scope. Record observed behavior and the requirement it contradicts. If intended behavior is unclear, report a specification question; if execution is unavailable, report an untested risk. Neither is a confirmed defect.
  5. For a confirmed failure, preserve a minimal reproducer. Add a focused regression test when test edits are within the task's scope; verify that it fails for the intended reason. Report any deliberately failing reproducer separately from the baseline. Do not silently repair production code.
  6. Finish with confirmed defects first, then consequential untested risks or specification questions, the evidence for each, and what was not examined. Finding no consequential gap is a valid result.

Guardrails

  • Do not equate low coverage with a defect, or green tests with exhaustive correctness. A hypothetical scenario alone is not a finding.
  • Preserve existing tests and assertions. Do not weaken a test, expand the refactor, or install an unrelated testing framework to produce a result.
  • Keep probes away from production data and external side effects unless explicitly authorized. State when a local fixture cannot represent the real boundary.
  • Keep this proportional to the change. Stop when further exploration is unlikely to alter the user's decision.

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