본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

test-audit

Gate new or changed Enterprise tests and audit existing tests for observable behavior, credible regressions, duplicate coverage, and test-only production seams.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md4.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Test Audit

Use the authoring gate when writing or changing tests. For a requested audit, inspect the selected scope before proposing edits; keep each batch coherent. Read repository test integrity rules first. Use fixture and scenario conventions when extracting reusable setup, builders, or contract suites. Keep expected outcomes independent of the implementation and resource ownership explicit.

Authoring gate

Before adding a test, answer all four questions:

  1. What observable behavior, invariant, or independent contract does it protect?
  2. What credible regression makes it fail?
  3. Why does existing coverage not already catch that failure? Prefer extending an existing case or fixture over duplicating the same proof.
  4. Does it need an export, flag, wrapper, or injection hook that no production caller needs? If so, test at the real owning boundary instead.

A missing answer means the test is not ready. Demonstrate that a bug regression test fails on the pre-fix implementation for the intended reason and passes with the repair. If that comparison cannot run, report the gap rather than claiming the regression was proved. Do not replace real behavior with a self-fulfilling mock or copy application logic into a fixture.

Audit and retention

Read the complete candidate test, production owner, callers, overlapping tests, relevant history, and CI selection. Inspect the dependency contract when the test claims dependency-backed behavior.

Look for assertion-free probes, self-comparisons, source-string assertions, copied inventories, duplicate contract invocations, private call-shape assertions, and exports or wrappers retained only for tests. These are candidates, not automatic deletions. A test that fails after behavior-preserving refactoring may need to move to a stable boundary.

Retain independent API, Driver, storage, security, configuration, protocol, packaging, generated-artifact, or architecture contract checks. Observable call ordering and credible regressions remain valuable. Static or slow tests are not low-value merely because of their form; source inspection can be an independent guard, but checking a SQL string does not prove database behavior.

Before deleting or rewriting a candidate, record:

  • Exact test name and path, and the failure it can detect.
  • Non-test callers of any covered production seam.
  • Stronger remaining proof, or why the behavior no longer needs coverage.
  • Relevant history, intended simplification, risk, and focused validation command.

Keep uncertain candidates and explain why. Within the authorized audit scope, remove confirmed obsolete test-only seams with their tests; do not preserve aliases or add new production seams to replace them. Optimize confidence rather than deletion counts. Report potential product changes separately.

Validate and hand off

Use enterprise-testing to choose the smallest real proof. Run commands from the repository root, for example:

node --test tests/conformance/contracts.test.mjs
node --test tests/integration/console-api.test.mjs
git diff --check

Select actual owner/sibling files for the change; the examples are not mandatory targets. Use pnpm test:conformance or pnpm test:integration when broader contracts warrant them. Persistence and runtime claims require the existing PostgreSQL, Docker, or Kubernetes procedures. Do not edit inputs while tests run. Retain integration-test comments that explain intent and invariants.

After audit edits, use deslop for behavior-neutral cleanup before requested autoreview. Report changed candidates, retained false positives, production versus test changes, exact proof and skips, and unresolved gaps. Follow contribution rules for authorized commits and PRs; an audit does not authorize a merge or another workstream.

Provenance

Adapted from OpenClaw; see source and intentional adaptations.

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

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

openclaw/openclaw-enterprise4252026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Assess designs, public interfaces, state ownership, readability, and refactor proposals when the task calls for design review or structural simplification; not for unrelated routine edits.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

openclaw/openclaw-enterprise4252026년 10월 21일 업데이트

deslop

무료

Clean only the current Enterprise diff before autoreview, preserving behavior, security boundaries, required TODOs, and useful test-intent comments.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

openclaw/openclaw-enterprise4252026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Select proportional Enterprise validation and diagnose exact CI runs, distinguishing product, harness, infrastructure, and credential failures.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

openclaw/openclaw-enterprise4252026년 10월 21일 업데이트

local-dev

무료

Develop OpenClaw Enterprise changes with proportional verification and source-backed flow documentation for non-trivial behavior.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

openclaw/openclaw-enterprise4252026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Create or refine readable Mermaid diagrams for changes, architecture, lifecycles, and dependencies in Markdown documents and PR descriptions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

openclaw/openclaw-enterprise4252026년 10월 21일 업데이트

openclaw의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고