跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

retest-after-revision

Use when the task came back to QA after need_revision - what to re-run, what may carry over, and how to keep old passes from approving new code

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(1)

  • SKILL.md2.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Retest After Revision

A resubmitted task carries history: earlier passed test cases (matched by title) and criterion approvals marked approved (as of SHA, changed since: files). Neither is free evidence for this round — a stale pass is exactly what lets a fixed bug reappear unnoticed, or a different bug ship under an old verdict.

Procedure

  1. list_test_cases and the criteria lines — read every "changed since" note; it names the files touched since the last approval.
  2. get_task_pull_request for the changed-file list (this is the named re-test-scope exception, not a code-reading shortcut for the verdict).
  3. Re-run first every case that failed last round, using its original reproduction. Bug fixed → prove it by testing the original symptom, not a nearby path.
  4. Re-run every case linked to a criterion whose changed-files list touches shared surface: styles/tokens/theme, layout/router, API client, auth/session, migrations/schema, env/config, package manifests/lockfile, i18n catalogues. This is what "plausibly affects" means in practice — a concrete file-category list, not a feeling.
  5. Run the regression smoke set (regression-checklist).
  6. Re-send every re-run case with its new result and evidence, prefixed by the new short SHA. A case you deliberately did not re-run keeps its old result only if its criterion line already says "nothing changed since", or its own notes record why the diff cannot reach it — say which, don't just skip silently.
  7. New behaviour the fix introduced gets new cases, same as any other round.

Red Flags

  • Approving a criterion whose line says "changed since" without a fresh run this round.
  • Re-running only the case that failed last time when the fix touched a shared file (styles, auth, migrations, …) that many other cases depend on.
  • Trusting the developer's "fixed it" without re-running the original failing reproduction.

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

Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1182026年10月21日 更新

Use when the diff adds or changes an endpoint, resolver, RPC, job or query that takes an object id, a role check, a request binding or a tenant filter - BOLA/IDOR, function-level authorization, mass assignment and tenant scoping

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1182026年10月21日 更新

Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1182026年10月21日 更新

Use when a task changes any screen, form, dialog, menu or control - Lighthouse/axe scan of the changed screens, a keyboard walk, and the thresholds that fail a task

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1182026年10月21日 更新

How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in need_revision or PR review comments are in your context.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1182026年10月21日 更新

Use when the repository keeps its alerting in code, or a person asks for alerts outside TaskTrooper - PrometheusRule YAML, a Cloud Monitoring alert policy in Terraform, a Datadog monitor, each routed to TaskTrooper's alert ingest URL so it opens an incident here

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1182026年10月21日 更新

查看 makifbaysal 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题