本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

webhook-delivery-tester

The single webhook-testing home, sender AND receiver: build-an-X for webhook delivery + receiver tests per Standard Webhooks (standardwebhooks.com) - HMAC-SHA256 signature verification, retry semantics with exponential backoff + jitter, replay-window check via timestamp tolerance, ordering guarantees, dead-letter handling for permanent failures, content-type + body-encoding fidelity - plus inbound capture-and-replay hardening (runtime-signed fixtures, tampered-payload and future-timestamp rejection, key-rotation acceptance, sanitized production captures) in references/inbound-replay.md. Use when authoring tests for webhook senders OR receivers in any system (Stripe / Twilio / SendGrid / GitHub / GitLab outbound webhooks; SaaS app inbound webhooks), including payment and realtime integrations.

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。

testland/qaスター 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)
連携ツールStripeGitHubGitLab

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(14)

  • SKILL.md10.8 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json943 B
  • evals/customers-cannot-verify-the-signatures-we-send/criteria.json7.6 KB
  • evals/customers-cannot-verify-the-signatures-we-send/task.md11.1 KB
  • evals/duplicate-credits-after-a-vendor-event-replay/criteria.json6.3 KB
  • evals/duplicate-credits-after-a-vendor-event-replay/task.md9.6 KB
  • evals/handler-written-from-docs-prose-before-go-live/criteria.json7.4 KB
  • evals/handler-written-from-docs-prose-before-go-live/task.md11.6 KB
  • evals/replay-suite-built-on-last-quarters-captures/criteria.json5.9 KB
  • evals/replay-suite-built-on-last-quarters-captures/task.md9.7 KB
  • evals/secret-rotation-tuesday-and-a-clock-skew-ticket/criteria.json8.6 KB
  • evals/secret-rotation-tuesday-and-a-clock-skew-ticket/task.md10.1 KB
  • references/inbound-replay.md5.2 KB
  • references/vendor-payloads-and-retries.md1.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

webhook-delivery-tester

Overview

The Standard Webhooks spec (standardwebhooks.com) formalizes the signing, retry, and replay patterns most production systems converged on. This skill covers tests for both sides:

  • Sender - your service emits webhooks to customers (Stripe-style outbound webhook).
  • Receiver - your service receives webhooks from a vendor (handler for Stripe / Twilio / SendGrid / GitHub events).

When to use

  • The repo emits or receives webhooks.
  • A regression suite needs to verify signature handling, retry semantics, replay-window enforcement.
  • Compliance review (SOC 2, security audit) requires evidence of signature verification.
  • The team adopts Standard Webhooks per stdwh.

Step 1 - Sender vs receiver test patterns

Test sideLayerTools
Sender - payload shapeUnitMock HTTP client; assert POST body
Sender - signingUnitVerify HMAC matches expected per Standard Webhooks
Sender - retriesIntegrationMock server returning 5xx, assert retry+backoff
Receiver - signature verifyUnitConstruct signed payload; assert handler accepts/rejects
Receiver - replay defenseUnitConstruct payload with stale timestamp; assert rejected
Receiver - handler logicUnitPer-event-type handler tests with vendor sample payloads

Step 2 - Sender: signature signing

Per Standard Webhooks (stdwh) the canonical signature scheme:

signature = HMAC-SHA256(secret, "{webhook_id}.{timestamp}.{payload}")

The signature accompanies the payload via the webhook-signature header (with v1, prefix for the version):

webhook-id: msg_2KkD9ApUQYKLn9ouQOFKjC
webhook-timestamp: 1714838400
webhook-signature: v1,g0hM9SsE+OTPJTGt/tmIKtSyZlE3uFJELVlNIOLJ1OE=

Sender-side test:

import hmac, hashlib, base64

def sign_webhook(secret, webhook_id, timestamp, payload):
    to_sign = f"{webhook_id}.{timestamp}.{payload}".encode()
    sig = hmac.new(
        base64.b64decode(secret),
        to_sign,
        hashlib.sha256,
    ).digest()
    return f"v1,{base64.b64encode(sig).decode()}"

def test_outbound_webhook_signed_correctly():
    payload = '{"type":"order.created","data":{"id":123}}'
    webhook_id = "msg_test"
    timestamp = "1714838400"
    expected_sig = sign_webhook(SECRET, webhook_id, timestamp, payload)

    sent_request = capture_outbound_webhook()
    assert sent_request["headers"]["webhook-id"] == webhook_id
    assert sent_request["headers"]["webhook-timestamp"] == timestamp
    assert sent_request["headers"]["webhook-signature"] == expected_sig

Step 3 - Sender: retry semantics

Per stdwh the canonical retry pattern is exponential backoff with jitter, capped at N attempts, then dead-letter. The typical delay schedule is in references/vendor-payloads-and-retries.md.

Sender-side test:

def test_webhook_retries_on_5xx(mock_receiver):
    mock_receiver.return_status(503)   # first 3 attempts fail
    mock_receiver.return_status_after_n(4, 200)   # 4th succeeds

    send_webhook(...)

    # Assert delivery succeeded after retries
    assert mock_receiver.attempt_count == 4
    # Assert backoff between attempts (mock can record timestamps)
    deltas = mock_receiver.attempt_deltas()
    assert deltas[1] >= 5   # at least 5s between attempt 1 and 2
    assert deltas[2] >= 5 * 60   # 5 min between 2 and 3

For dead-letter: assert that after max attempts, the webhook is recorded in a dead-letter store + not retried.

Step 4 - Receiver: signature verification

Standard Webhooks signature verification per stdwh:

  1. Reconstruct the to-sign string: {webhook-id}.{webhook-timestamp}.{payload}
  2. Compute expected signature with the shared secret.
  3. Constant-time compare with the webhook-signature header value.
  4. Reject if mismatch.

Receiver-side test:

def test_receiver_rejects_invalid_signature(client):
    response = client.post(
        "/webhooks/orders",
        headers={
            "webhook-id": "msg_1",
            "webhook-timestamp": str(int(time.time())),
            "webhook-signature": "v1,deliberately-wrong",
        },
        data='{"type":"order.created"}',
    )
    assert response.status_code == 400

def test_receiver_accepts_valid_signature(client):
    payload = '{"type":"order.created"}'
    timestamp = str(int(time.time()))
    sig = sign_webhook(SECRET, "msg_1", timestamp, payload)

    response = client.post(
        "/webhooks/orders",
        headers={
            "webhook-id": "msg_1",
            "webhook-timestamp": timestamp,
            "webhook-signature": sig,
        },
        data=payload,
    )
    assert response.status_code == 200

Step 5 - Receiver: replay-window defense

A captured signed payload should NOT be re-replayable indefinitely. Per stdwh the receiver should reject payloads with timestamps outside a short window (typically 5 minutes).

def test_receiver_rejects_stale_timestamp(client):
    stale_timestamp = str(int(time.time()) - 600)   # 10 min ago
    payload = '{"type":"order.created"}'
    sig = sign_webhook(SECRET, "msg_1", stale_timestamp, payload)

    response = client.post(
        "/webhooks/orders",
        headers={
            "webhook-id": "msg_1",
            "webhook-timestamp": stale_timestamp,
            "webhook-signature": sig,
        },
        data=payload,
    )
    assert response.status_code == 400

If receiver doesn't enforce this, mark critical: replay vulnerable. The harder receiver attack cases - tampered payloads, future-dated timestamps, key rotation, and a capture-and-replay framework with runtime-signed fixtures - are in references/inbound-replay.md.

Step 6 - Receiver: idempotent processing

Webhooks are sent at-least-once (vendor retries on 5xx); receiver must be idempotent. Cross-ref idempotency-test-author (in the qa-async-jobs plugin):

def test_receiver_idempotent_via_webhook_id(client):
    payload = '{"type":"order.created","data":{"id":123}}'
    webhook_id = "msg_unique"
    sig, ts = sign_for_now(payload, webhook_id)

    # Send twice (simulating vendor redelivery)
    response1 = client.post("/webhooks/orders", headers=..., data=payload)
    response2 = client.post("/webhooks/orders", headers=..., data=payload)

    assert response1.status_code == 200
    assert response2.status_code == 200   # both OK, but only one side-effect
    assert Order.objects.filter(external_id=123).count() == 1

Step 7 - Per-vendor sample payloads

For receiver tests of specific vendors, use the vendor's official sample payloads (NOT hand-rolled) - making up payloads risks field-name drift. The per-vendor documentation links are in references/vendor-payloads-and-retries.md.

Step 8 - Ordering guarantees

Webhooks are typically NOT ordered (concurrent retries → out-of-order delivery). If your handler relies on order (e.g., processing order.created before order.updated), tests should:

def test_handler_handles_out_of_order_events(client):
    # Send "updated" event BEFORE "created"
    send_webhook(client, type="order.updated", id=123, status="shipped")
    send_webhook(client, type="order.created", id=123, status="placed")

    # Handler should reconcile via fetch-from-vendor + apply latest state
    order = Order.objects.get(external_id=123)
    assert order.status == "shipped"   # latest wins

If your handler can't survive out-of-order, mark critical - production will encounter this.

Step 9 - End-to-end test recipe

For sender:

  1. ✅ Payload shape matches spec (Step 1)
  2. ✅ Signature correctly computed (Step 2)
  3. ✅ Retry on 5xx with backoff (Step 3)
  4. ✅ Dead-letter after max attempts (Step 3)

For receiver:

  1. ✅ Reject invalid signature (Step 4)
  2. ✅ Accept valid signature (Step 4)
  3. ✅ Reject stale timestamp (Step 5)
  4. ✅ Idempotent processing on retry (Step 6)
  5. ✅ Per-vendor sample payload tests (Step 7)
  6. ✅ Out-of-order handling if applicable (Step 8)

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Skip signature verificationWebhooks accept arbitrary attacker payloadsStep 4 negative + positive tests
Skip replay-window checkCaptured webhook replayable foreverStep 5
Use == instead of constant-time compare for signatureTiming-attack vulnerablehmac.compare_digest()
Hand-roll vendor sample payloadsField names drift from real vendor sendsUse vendor's sample (Step 7)
Receiver returns 200 before processingVendor stops retrying; data lost on processing failureProcess synchronously OR queue + return 200 + handle failures via internal queue with idempotency

Limitations

  • This is a build-an-X workflow. Tests use the application's HTTP server + an HMAC library.
  • Standard Webhooks adoption varies - many vendors use legacy signature schemes (X-Hub-Signature from GitHub, Stripe-Signature from Stripe). Adapt the verification logic per vendor; the workflow is the same.
  • Signature secret rotation is out of scope; pair with a secrets-management workflow.
  • For vendors that don't sign (legacy / cheap webhooks), IP-allowlisting is the only protection; not addressed here.

References

  • Inbound capture-and-replay hardening (tamper / future-timestamp / key-rotation cases, sanitized captures): references/inbound-replay.md
  • stdwh - Standard Webhooks specification
  • IETF RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication
  • stripe.com/docs/webhooks - Stripe webhooks reference (de-facto standard for many patterns)
  • docs.github.com/en/webhooks - GitHub webhooks reference
  • idempotency-test-author - companion: receivers must be idempotent (cross-plugin)
  • mailpit-testing (email flows in its references), sms-test-author - sister channels (bounce/complaint webhooks + STOP-keyword webhooks reuse these patterns)

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

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。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

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。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

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。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

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。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

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。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

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。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

testland のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する