跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

test

Write or assess tests that prove behavior and would fail without the fix. Use when: writing tests, TDD, or asked whether a green test is enough.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(13)

  • SKILL.md8.1 KB
  • references/conformance-harnesses.md2.1 KB
  • references/error-recovery.md3.0 KB
  • references/exploratory-qa.md4.5 KB
  • references/fuzzing.md1.6 KB
  • references/golden-artifact-strategy.md2.0 KB
  • references/golden-artifacts.md1.7 KB
  • references/metamorphic-testing.md2.0 KB
  • references/real-service-e2e.md2.0 KB
  • references/subject-performance.md6.3 KB
  • references/suite-audit.md4.3 KB
  • references/test.feature1.0 KB
  • scripts/validate.sh1.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Test

Write or strengthen tests for a named behavior. Use existing tests directly when the task is only to run a known suite; this skill is not a required wrapper. A test is useful when it distinguishes an accepted outcome from a plausible failure, not merely when it executes the implementation. A green test is evidence for the caller's decision, never the test author's merge approval.

Modes

ModeUse whenResult
generateExisting behavior needs testsUseful tests and focused/suite results
coverageThe caller asks to find or fill gapsBefore/after coverage, valuable tests and remaining risks
tddNew behavior is being developed test firstReal expected RED, implementation, green and refactor
strategyThe caller wants test design onlyPrioritized risks and proposed checks in the existing discussion

Default to generate; mode and scope are skill prompt choices, not invented CLI flags. Coverage thresholds come from the caller or repository.

Critical Constraints

  • Assert the promised effect. Check the state change, stored record, outbound call or count the behavior promises, with exact expected values. A status code, a returned object or the absence of an exception alone does not prove the behavior.
  • A regression test proves nothing until it fails on the defect. Show that it fails on the pre-fix code (see Mutation-kill proof). Until then, report its proof as "not shown"; green alone is not yet proof.
  • Derive cases from accepted observable behavior; reuse examples from the conversation, bead, specification or existing contract before inventing new ones. Keep established domain names; do not unify bounded-context terms by renaming tests.
  • Use the repository's framework and real check recipe; keep tests free of accidental timing, ordering and shared-state dependencies.
  • A test that starts green on existing correct behavior is legitimate. Never manufacture a RED claim or alter acceptance to excuse a product defect.
  • Repair a discovered defect when already authorized; otherwise report the reproducer and finding. Do not mask it by deleting or weakening a test.

Oracle-strength hierarchy

Prefer exact observable values or errors when known. Use properties or invariants when they express the contract more faithfully than one example. Differential agreement needs an independently credible reference. A smoke check proves only what it observes; it cannot establish an exact behavior by itself. Explain a material oracle limit in the native handoff, without creating a worksheet or mandatory report.

Mutation-kill proof

Establish that an important new behavioral check can catch the defect it claims to guard. An authentic pre-fix RED or reproduction is usually sufficient. If a regression test was written after the fix, run it against the pre-fix version (revert the fix in an isolated copy) or use a safe, targeted negative control. Mutate only when that would resolve real doubt about the oracle, then restore and verify the candidate. Do not demand one mutation experiment per table row or new test.

Harness health floors

Confirm the runner completed, the intended tests actually ran, and assertions observe the promised behavior. Report crashes, truncation, unexpected skips or exclusions as gaps. When runner discovery or failure reporting changed, use a negative control through that same path before trusting green. No need to re-prove an unchanged healthy runner on each edit.

Workflow

  1. Read the accepted examples and the relevant public interface. One discriminating example may suffice for a small change; add the error and boundary cases that could falsify acceptance. A .feature file is optional; if the repository already uses scenario-to-test annotations, maintain them and use its scenario coverage checker. When several record kinds support different actions, derive the meaningful kind/action pairs from accepted domain rules and check their promised end states. Do not invent impossible combinations or infer a kind's result from a sibling's passing test. A table test may cover many pairs; no separate artifact or test per cell is required. Report relevant uncovered pairs under unchecked. Shared removal code is valid when those kinds should both disappear; it is a defect when an observed end state contradicts the accepted meaning, such as deleting a record that withdrawal must retain as inactive.
  2. Find the owning suite and a narrow baseline. Use Domain's standards only if they would change the test choice. Measure broad coverage only in coverage mode or under an existing repository requirement.
  3. Write the smallest test that observes the promised result through a stable interface. In tdd mode run it before implementation and require the expected missing-behavior failure, then implement and refactor under green.
  4. Run focused checks while editing and the relevant integration recipe before handoff; broaden only for changed risk, a failure or repository policy.
  5. Compare against the original accepted examples. New tests added after implementation may supplement but never replace them.

Specialized references

Load only the guidance needed by the subject:

Output Specification

Tests belong in the repository's language-native locations. Check facts and limits go in the existing handoff:

tests:     <file::name> -> <behavior and exact values it asserts>
proof:     <each important new test> -> how it was shown to fail on its defect:
           pre-fix RED | reverted-fix run | negative control | not shown
commands:  <exact command> -> <result>
harness:   <runner completed; how many ran; skips or exclusions>
defects:   <discovered defect and reproducer, or none>
unchecked: <material behavior no test covers>

Persist coverage or other reports only when requested or required by a declared consumer, at its selected destination; no automatic .agents/ output. Factual green is input to the caller's merge or review decision, not the test author's binding PASS.

Example: for a duplicate Job delivery, assert that the completed result is returned and the external side effect is called only once. A coverage increase without those assertions would not prove the behavior.

This guidance uses original examples informed by Matt Pocock's engineering skills, with AgentOps' existing acceptance and evidence boundaries.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Dispatch independent tasks to parallel workers or subagents without write collisions. Use when: running or planning agents in parallel, even two; check scopes before any launch.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

boshu2/agentops4502026年10月22日 更新

Run a supplied task in headless AGY (Antigravity, Gemini) and collect its result. Use when: AGY, Antigravity or Gemini is requested by name; never a fallback.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

boshu2/agentops4502026年10月22日 更新

Compare interface designs and find structural friction. Use when: a change spreads across modules or a boundary is unclear. For code changes, use Refactor.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

boshu2/agentops4502026年10月22日 更新

Run one prompt through headless Claude with scoped permissions and a time bound. Use when: scripting or automating a `claude -p` call, even a simple one.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

boshu2/agentops4502026年10月22日 更新

Run one prompt through headless Codex and capture the result. Use when: wanting a one-shot `codex exec` run or CI step. Not for batches or retries.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

boshu2/agentops4502026年10月22日 更新

council

免费

Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

boshu2/agentops4502026年10月22日 更新

查看 boshu2 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题