Pure-reference catalog of payment lifecycle state machines across Stripe, Adyen, PayPal, and Braintree: canonical states (created / requires_action / processing / succeeded / requires_capture / canceled / failed), authorisation vs capture, asynchronous webhook states, refund / dispute / chargeback transitions, and the 3-D Secure (EMVCo 3DS 2.x) frictionless / challenge flow paths with per-gateway 3DS test cards (references/3ds-flows.md). Use when designing tests for payment flows, auditing state-handling code, or covering a 3DS round-trip; this is the state model, not a builder - to author suites on it use payment-flow-test-author (refunds, disputes, webhook replay).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
实测评分 未实测
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Every payment platform exposes a state machine - the PaymentIntent in Stripe, the Authorisation in Adyen, the Order in PayPal, the Transaction in Braintree. Each has different terminology for what is fundamentally the same lifecycle.
Per stripe.com/docs/payments/payment-intents: "The PaymentIntent encapsulates the lifecycle of a customer payment."
The full per-platform terminology grid, the per-provider state machines, and the async webhook / refund / dispute detail live in references/payment-state-machines.md.
Most payment systems share the same conceptual lifecycle. The canonical states, in order:
Each provider names these differently. The full canonical-to-provider grid and the four per-provider state machines (Stripe PaymentIntent, Adyen Authorisation/Capture, PayPal Order, Braintree Transaction) are in references/payment-state-machines.md.
Two-step:
Default in most systems is auto-capture (auth + capture in one call). Separate auth-then-capture is used for:
Per stripe.com/docs/payments/capture:
PaymentIntent with capture_method=manual requires explicit capture call.
Map a Stripe PaymentIntent lifecycle for a 3DS card that then gets
refunded. The path: requires_payment_method -> requires_action ->
processing -> succeeded, then a refund pending -> succeeded.
Test cases derived, one per transition:
| Transition | Test case |
|---|---|
requires_payment_method -> requires_action | Confirm with a challenge card; assert requires_action + next_action.type = redirect_to_url |
requires_action -> processing | Complete the issuer challenge; assert the intent leaves requires_action |
processing -> succeeded | Wait for payment_intent.succeeded webhook; assert final state (not the sync return) |
succeeded -> refund pending | Issue a full refund; assert refund object pending |
refund pending -> succeeded | Wait for charge.refunded webhook; assert refund succeeded |
Each async assertion waits on the webhook, so the same lifecycle exercised
without 3DS (a frictionless card that skips requires_action) is a separate
case, not a variant of this one.
Most payment APIs accept an Idempotency-Key header (Stripe, Adyen) or
equivalent. The pattern: retry with the same key produces the same response.
Per stripe.com/docs/api/idempotent_requests: "Stripe supports idempotency for safely retrying requests without accidentally performing the same operation twice."
Tests should verify the merchant code uses idempotency keys for every mutating call.
| Surface | Test |
|---|---|
| Created → succeeded (happy path) | Standard test-card; assert each state observed |
| Requires-action (3DS) | Initiate with a challenge test card (Stripe 4000 0027 6000 3184, Adyen 4917 6100 0000 0000); assert requires_action / RedirectShopper with next_action.type = redirect_to_url; complete the issuer-hosted challenge; confirm and assert succeeded. Repeat with a frictionless card (Stripe 4000 0000 0000 3055) - must reach succeeded with no challenge. Per references/3ds-flows.md |
| Failed (insufficient funds) | Use insufficient-funds test card; assert state |
| Cancelled before capture | Manual-capture + cancel; assert state |
| Webhook idempotency | Replay webhook twice; assert idempotent handling |
| Refund full | Capture + full refund; assert state sequence |
| Refund partial | Capture + partial refund; assert state |
| Dispute won | Trigger dispute; respond; assert won |
| Dispute lost | Trigger dispute; don't respond; assert lost |
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Treating the API return as the final state | Async; succeeded comes later | Wait for webhook |
| No idempotency key | Network retries duplicate-charge customers | Always set idempotency |
| Hardcoded sleep waiting for webhooks | Flaky | Poll webhook endpoint or queue with timeout |
| Skipping the requires-action flow | 3DS regulations require it for most EU cards | Always test 3DS path |
| Stale state stored locally | Local DB diverges from platform | Webhook-driven update |
| Trust the request-body status | Webhooks can be replayed by attackers | Verify signature + idempotency |
| One test for all platforms | State terminology differs | Per-platform test suite |
| Refund tests in sync flow | Refunds are async | Webhook-based |
setup_intent for saved payment
methods; PayPal's Orders API is newer than the legacy Payments API.pci-dss-control-test-author (in the qa-compliance
plugin) and its references/pci-scope.md.stripe-test-cards-and-webhooks,
payment-gateway-sandboxes,
payment-flow-test-author.还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
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。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。