「edge cases」の検索結果

Generate randomized and edge-case inputs to detect unexpected failures, bugs, and security vulnerabilities through fuzz testing. Use when creating test cases for robustness testing, generating adversarial inputs, testing error handling, finding edge cases, or security testing. Produces Python test code with fuzzing inputs for strings, numbers, and structured data focusing on edge cases, invalid inputs, and random valid inputs. Triggers when users ask to generate fuzz tests, create randomized test inputs, test edge cases, find bugs through fuzzing, or generate adversarial test cases.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Automatically identify potential boundary and exception cases from requirements, specifications, or existing code, and generate comprehensive test cases targeting boundary conditions, edge cases, and uncommon scenarios. Use this skill when analyzing programs, code repositories, functions, or APIs to discover and test corner cases, null handling, overflow conditions, empty inputs, concurrent access patterns, and other exceptional scenarios that are often missed in standard testing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Property-based testing with fast-check (TypeScript/JavaScript) and Hypothesis (Python). Generate test cases automatically, find edge cases, and test mathematical properties. Use when user mentions property-based testing, fast-check, Hypothesis, generating test data, QuickCheck-style testing, or finding edge cases automatically.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Designing conversational flows for website chatbots and AI agents. Intent recognition architecture, branching logic, fallback handling, escalation to human, conversation analytics. Honest about scripted-bot (rigid trees, fail edge cases), hallucinating-bot (LLM without structure, makes things up), and structured-guided-conversation (LLM-powered with intent architecture and fallback discipline) patterns. Distinguishes chatbot DESIGN (this skill) from chatbot IMPLEMENTATION (engineering and platform work). Triggers on chatbot, conversational AI, AI agent, chat widget, intent design, conversational flow, bot escalation, LLM grounding. Also triggers when a chatbot is hallucinating, when a scripted bot is failing edge cases, or when a chatbot is being scoped for the first time.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generates comprehensive test scenarios from requirements including BDD/Gherkin scenarios, unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end test cases. Use when converting requirements, user stories, or specifications into testable scenarios with full coverage including happy paths, error cases, edge cases, and boundary conditions. Outputs structured test suites ready for implementation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Transparent, itemized impressions of AI-generated WRITING STYLE — the repo's ONLY non-integrity track. Two passes: a deterministic defensive-hedge density screen (tools/check_ai_style.py, AIS-DEFENSIVE-HEDGE) plus a fresh cross-model GROSS-cases-only semantic pass over the 13 AIS-* style tells (broken narrative arc, LLM phrase tics, jargon-stuffing, invented codenames, clause/formula walls, gratuitous pseudocode, bullet overuse, bold-module spam, restatement loops, focus drift, single-style figures, appendix dumping). Every finding is named, LOCATED, span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json), carries not_integrity_finding:true + false_positive_risk:high + an fp_case, and gets ZERO verdict weight: the adjudicator forces it to info, excludes it from overall_verdict, and renders it in a SEPARATE report section. NOT an AI-text classifier — no scores, no "this is AI-written", no authorship probability; a paper can be CLEAN_GIVEN_EVIDENCE and still list many. Emits ai-style-impressions.findings.json; computes NO verdict; if a tell is actually substantive it routes to the integrity auditor. Triggers: "AI style", "vibe check", "writing fingerprint", "AI 文风", "vibe paper".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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?".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Smart Kotlin unit testing with auto-detection, coverage analysis, and AI edge cases. Use when generating tests for biz/ layer classes, analyzing test coverage gaps, or discovering edge cases.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

TDD を主張する実装の RED/GREEN/REFACTOR VERIFY 証跡（tdd-ledger）の妥当性を検査し、フェーズ順序・exitCode・test-cases との対応の欠落や偽装を検知する

Courses whose content rests on current, external or real-world facts that must be verified against live sources before being taught — recent events, market or policy data, product and version specifics, scientific developments, named cases. Researches the topic first, keeps a claim-to-source ledger, and grounds the outline and every page in what was actually fetched. Use when the request depends on up-to-date or externally checkable facts; not for timeless textbook topics that stand on established knowledge alone.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Parse Chromium-based browser databases with Hindsight to extract and correlate browsing history, downloads, cookies, cached content, autofill data, saved passwords, and extensions from Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi into a unified timeline (XLSX, JSON, or SQLite output). Use during incident response, insider-threat investigations, or criminal cases when you need to reconstruct a user's web activity from a browser profile.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Document a business process — flowcharts, RACI, and SOPs. Use when formalizing a process that lives in someone's head, building a RACI to clarify who owns what, writing an SOP for a handoff or audit, or capturing the exceptions and edge cases of how work actually gets done.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate developer handoff specs from a design. Use when a design is ready for engineering and needs a spec sheet covering layout, design tokens, component props, interaction states, responsive breakpoints, edge cases, and animation details.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n issues.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate comprehensive test cases including edge cases, stress tests, and counter-examples for algorithm correctness verification. Supports random generation, constraint-based generation, and brute force oracle comparison.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Make an AI agent or automation reliable enough to trust — the tests, checks, and guardrails that catch its failures before they reach anything real. Use when asked how do I test my AI agent, make my automation reliable, my agent works sometimes, or how do I trust an AI workflow in production. Produces a map of where the agent can fail (bad input, hallucination, wrong tool call, edge cases, silent errors), the checks that catch each (validation, evals on real cases, human-in-the-loop gates, monitoring), a right-sized reliability plan scaled to the stakes, and a rollout that earns trust incrementally.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Property-based testing (PBT) patterns with fast-check (JS/TS), Hypothesis (Python), and gopter (Go). Generate random inputs, define invariants, shrink failures to minimal cases. Adapted from Trail of Bits. Use when testing pure functions, parsers, serializers, state machines, or any code where example-based tests miss edge cases.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Provides edge case, corner case, boundary condition, and limit testing patterns for Java unit tests. Validates minimum/maximum values, null cases, empty collections, numeric overflow/underflow, floating-point precision, and off-by-one scenarios using JUnit 5 and AssertJ. Use when writing .java test files to ensure code handles limits, corner cases, and special inputs correctly.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate comprehensive test scenarios, user stories, and acceptance criteria from requirements and specifications. Use this skill when planning testing efforts, writing user stories, creating test cases, documenting acceptance criteria, exploring edge cases, designing test coverage, or translating requirements into actionable scenarios. Supports BDD (Given-When-Then), Gherkin syntax, user story format, and test case documentation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes surviving mutants from mutation testing to identify why tests failed to detect them. Takes repository code, test suite, and mutation testing results as input. Identifies root causes including insufficient coverage, equivalent mutants, weak assertions, and missed edge cases. Automatically generates actionable test improvements and new test cases. Use when analyzing mutation testing results, improving test suite effectiveness, investigating low mutation scores, generating tests to kill surviving mutants, or enhancing test quality based on mutation analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。