Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
前端设计只读github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

aaa-patternAAA 模式

Agent Skill

用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑的开发与维护。它适合让 Agent 生成或审查 React、Next.js、Vue、Tailwind、CSS 等相关代码,整理组件结构,或定位布局和性能问题。使用时需要结合项目现有设计系统、路由和构建方式,避免只生成孤立片段;涉及页面改动时,应配合本地预览和构建检查确认视觉效果。

总安装

636

周安装

26

GitHub Stars

10

下载量

204
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:aaa-pattern(AAA 模式)
来源仓库:https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft
仓库路径:skills/aaa-pattern
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft --skill aaa-pattern
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft --skill aaa-pattern

简介

aaa-pattern 提供 AAA 模式(Arrange-Act-Assert)测试框架指导,强调将测试分为三个清晰阶段以提升可读性。

  • 适用于编写和维护单元测试、集成测试的场景,尤其适合逻辑复杂或多人协作的项目。
  • 帮助开发者识别混合阶段的代码异味,强制分离准备、执行与断言环节,增强调试效率。
  • 可直接应用于 React、Vue 等前端项目的测试用例开发,配合 Jest、Vitest 等工具使用。
  • 使用时需注意不要为简化而合并阶段,确保每个测试都有明确的结构划分。

SKILL.md

AAA Pattern (Arrange-Act-Assert)

Overview

Every test has three phases: Arrange, Act, Assert. Keep them separate.

Clear structure makes tests readable, maintainable, and debuggable. When phases blur together, tests become confusing.

When to Use

  • Writing any test
  • Test logic is hard to follow
  • Unclear what's being tested
  • Multiple actions or assertions mixed together

The Iron Rule

EVERY test must have clearly separated Arrange, Act, and Assert phases.

No exceptions:

  • Not for "it's a simple test"
  • Not for "it's more concise this way"
  • Not for "the phases are obvious"

Detection: Mixed Phases Smell

If arrange/act/assert blend together, STOP:

// ❌ VIOLATION: Phases mixed together
it('adds items to cart', () => {
  const cart = new Cart();
  cart.add({ id: '1', price: 10 });
  expect(cart.items.length).toBe(1);  // Assert in the middle
  cart.add({ id: '2', price: 20 });   // More acting
  expect(cart.total).toBe(30);        // Another assert
  expect(cart.items.length).toBe(2);  // And another
});

Problems:

  • What exactly is being tested?
  • Which action caused which result?
  • Hard to name the test accurately

The Correct Pattern: Clear Separation

// ✅ CORRECT: Clear AAA structure
it('calculates total price of all items in cart', () => {
  // Arrange
  const cart = new Cart();
  cart.add({ id: '1', name: 'Apple', price: 10 });
  cart.add({ id: '2', name: 'Banana', price: 20 });

  // Act
  const total = cart.getTotal();

  // Assert
  expect(total).toBe(30);
});

it('tracks number of items in cart', () => {
  // Arrange
  const cart = new Cart();

  // Act
  cart.add({ id: '1', name: 'Apple', price: 10 });
  cart.add({ id: '2', name: 'Banana', price: 20 });

  // Assert
  expect(cart.itemCount).toBe(2);
});

The Three Phases

Arrange

Set up the test scenario:

  • Create objects
  • Configure mocks
  • Prepare input data
  • Set initial state

Act

Execute the behavior being tested:

  • Single action (usually)
  • Call the method
  • Trigger the event
  • Make the request

Assert

Verify the outcome:

  • Check return values
  • Verify state changes
  • Confirm mock interactions
  • Validate side effects

Advanced: Given-When-Then

For BDD-style tests, same concept:

describe('Cart', () => {
  describe('when adding items', () => {
    it('should update the total', () => {
      // Given (Arrange)
      const cart = new Cart();
      const item = { id: '1', price: 25 };

      // When (Act)
      cart.add(item);

      // Then (Assert)
      expect(cart.total).toBe(25);
    });
  });
});

One Assert Per Test?

Guideline, not rule. Multiple asserts are fine if they verify ONE behavior:

// ✅ OK: Multiple asserts for one logical behavior
it('creates user with correct properties', () => {
  // Arrange
  const input = { email: 'a@b.com', name: 'Alice' };

  // Act
  const user = createUser(input);

  // Assert - all verify the creation behavior
  expect(user.id).toBeDefined();
  expect(user.email).toBe('a@b.com');
  expect(user.name).toBe('Alice');
  expect(user.createdAt).toBeInstanceOf(Date);
});
// ❌ BAD: Multiple behaviors in one test
it('user operations', () => {
  const user = createUser({ name: 'Alice' });
  expect(user.name).toBe('Alice');

  updateUser(user.id, { name: 'Bob' });
  expect(user.name).toBe('Bob');  // Different behavior!

  deleteUser(user.id);
  expect(getUser(user.id)).toBeNull();  // Yet another behavior!
});

Pressure Resistance Protocol

1. "It's More Concise"

Pressure: "Combining phases makes the test shorter"

Response: Short but confusing is worse than longer but clear.

Action: Separate the phases. Add comments if needed.

2. "It's a Simple Test"

Pressure: "For trivial tests, AAA is overkill"

Response: Consistency matters. All tests should follow the same pattern.

Action: Use AAA even for simple tests. It costs nothing.

3. "I Need Multiple Actions"

Pressure: "The behavior requires multiple steps"

Response: Multiple setup steps go in Arrange. Only the behavior being tested goes in Act.

Action: If you need multiple Acts, you probably need multiple tests.

Red Flags - STOP and Reconsider

  • expect() calls between actions
  • No clear single "act"
  • Assertions scattered throughout
  • Hard to describe what test verifies
  • Test name doesn't match structure

All of these mean: Restructure with clear AAA.

Quick Reference

PhaseContainsExample
ArrangeSetup, mocks, dataconst cart = new Cart()
ActSingle behaviorconst total = cart.checkout()
AssertVerificationsexpect(total).toBe(100)

Common Rationalizations (All Invalid)

ExcuseReality
"It's more concise"Clarity beats brevity.
"The phases are obvious"Make them explicit anyway.
"Simple test, no need"Consistency matters.
"Multiple actions needed"Split into multiple tests.
"Comments are enough"Structure is better than comments.

The Bottom Line

Arrange. Act. Assert. In that order. Clearly separated.

Every test sets up (Arrange), does one thing (Act), and verifies (Assert). When phases are clear, tests are readable, debuggable, and maintainable.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

25.92%
按下载量换算53

Codex

23.2%
按下载量换算47

windsurf

17.74%
按下载量换算36

Antigravity

11.08%
按下载量换算23

trae

7.84%
按下载量换算16

OpenCode

2.96%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills