Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索执行命令github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

create-skill-test创建技能测试

Agent Skill

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。它适合让 Agent 编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。使用时需要确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为了通过测试而改坏真实逻辑;涉及浏览器或外部服务时,应区分本地模拟、测试环境和生产环境。

总安装

4,211

周安装

172

GitHub Stars

1,476

下载量

1,362
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

2

许可证

unknown

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:create-skill-test(创建技能测试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/dotnet/skills
仓库路径:skills/create-skill-test
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/skills --skill create-skill-test
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。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/skills --skill create-skill-test

简介

create-skill-test 用于辅助设计符合规范的评估测试用例,确保技能通过验证并避免过拟合。

  • 适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 等宿主环境,适合技能开发者编写单元测试或端到端验证。
  • 提供 eval.yaml 模板、夹具文件和断言建议,支持多场景覆盖与回归检查。
  • 安装前请确认项目测试框架、运行命令及是否涉及敏感数据或外部服务调用。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Create Skill Test

This skill helps you scaffold evaluation tests (eval.yaml) for agent skills, ensuring they conform to the dotnet/skills repository conventions, pass the skill-validator checks, and avoid common overfitting pitfalls.

When to Use

  • Creating a new eval.yaml test file for a skill
  • Adding scenarios to an existing eval file
  • Setting up test fixture files alongside eval definitions
  • Reviewing whether rubric items and assertions risk overfitting

When Not to Use

  • Running or debugging existing tests (use the skill-validator directly)
  • Modifying the skill-validator tool itself
  • Creating or editing SKILL.md files (use the create-skill skill)

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
Skill nameYesThe skill being tested (must match a skill under plugins/<plugin>/skills/)
Plugin nameYesThe plugin the skill belongs to (e.g., dotnet-msbuild)
Skill contentRecommendedThe SKILL.md content to understand what the skill teaches
Scenario descriptionsRecommendedWhat situations the agent should be tested on

Workflow

Step 1: Locate the target and determine the test directory

Tests live at:

# For skills:
tests/<plugin>/<skill-name>/eval.yaml

# For agents (agent. prefix convention):
tests/<plugin>/agent.<agent-name>/eval.yaml

For skills, verify the skill exists at plugins/<plugin>/skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md. For agents, verify the agent exists at plugins/<plugin>/agents/<agent-name>.agent.md. Read the target content to understand what it does -- this is critical for writing non-overfitted rubric items.

Step 2: Create the test directory and eval.yaml

Create the directory and file:

# For skills:
tests/<plugin>/<skill-name>/
+-- eval.yaml

# For agents:
tests/<plugin>/agent.<agent-name>/
+-- eval.yaml

The agent. prefix disambiguates agent test directories from skill test directories that might share the same name.

Step 3: Write scenarios

Each scenario needs a name, prompt, at least one assertion, and a rubric. Use this structure:

scenarios:
  - name: "Descriptive scenario name"
    prompt: "Natural language task description as a developer would phrase it"
    setup:
      copy_test_files: true          # OR use inline files
    assertions:
      - type: "output_contains"
        value: "expected text"
    rubric:
      - "The agent correctly identified the root cause"
      - "The agent suggested a concrete, actionable fix"
    timeout: 120

Scenario guidelines

  • Name: Describe *what* is being tested, not *how* (e.g., "Diagnose missing package reference" not "Test binlog replay and error extraction").
  • Prompt: Write as a natural developer request. Never mention the skill name or instruct the agent to "use a skill." Neutral prompts prevent prompt overfitting.
  • Timeout: Default is 120 seconds. Use 300-600 for scenarios requiring builds, benchmarks, or multi-step operations.

Step 4: Configure setup

Choose one of three setup strategies:

Option A: Copy test files (recommended for complex fixtures)

Place fixture files alongside eval.yaml and enable auto-copy:

setup:
  copy_test_files: true

All files in the directory (except eval.yaml) are copied into the agent's working directory.

Option B: Inline files (good for small, self-contained scenarios)

setup:
  files:
    - path: "MyProject/MyProject.csproj"
      content: |
        <Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
          <PropertyGroup>
            <TargetFramework>net10.0</TargetFramework>
          </PropertyGroup>
        </Project>
    - path: "MyProject/Program.cs"
      content: |
        Console.WriteLine("Hello");

Option C: Reference fixture files from a subdirectory

setup:
  files:
    - path: "TestProject.csproj"
      source: "fixtures/scenario-a/TestProject.csproj"

Use this when multiple scenarios share a fixtures/ directory with separate subdirectories.

Setup commands (optional)

Run shell commands before the agent starts (e.g., to build a project and generate artifacts):

setup:
  copy_test_files: true
  commands:
    - "dotnet build -bl:build.binlog"

Scenario dependencies (optional)

Some agents route to specific skills, or some skills depend on sibling agents. In the isolated run, only the target is loaded — so the scenario must declare its dependencies using additional_required_skills and/or additional_required_agents:

setup:
  copy_test_files: true
  additional_required_skills:
    - binlog-failure-analysis    # loaded in isolated run alongside the target
  additional_required_agents:
    - build-perf                 # registered in isolated run alongside the target
  • Names are resolved from the same plugin's skills/ or agents/ directory.
  • These only affect the isolated run. The plugin run already loads everything; the baseline loads nothing.
  • Different scenarios of the same target can declare different dependencies (per-scenario granularity).
  • If a declared name cannot be resolved, the validator fails with an error.

Step 5: Write assertions

Assertions are hard pass/fail checks. Use them for objective, binary-verifiable criteria.

TypeRequired fieldsDescription
output_containsvalueAgent output contains text (case-insensitive)
output_not_containsvalueAgent output must NOT contain text
output_matchespatternAgent output matches regex
output_not_matchespatternAgent output does NOT match regex
file_existspathFile matching glob exists in work dir
file_not_existspathNo file matching glob exists
file_containspath, valueFile at glob path contains text
file_not_containspath, valueFile at glob path does NOT contain text
exit_success--Agent produced non-empty output

Assertion guidelines

  • Prefer broad assertions that multiple valid approaches would satisfy.
  • Avoid narrow assertions that gate on a specific syntax or flag the LLM already knows.
  • Use output_matches with regex alternation for flexible matching: "(root cause|primary error|underlying issue)".
  • Use file_contains / file_not_contains to verify the agent modified files correctly.
  • Use output_not_contains and file_not_exists to verify the agent avoided incorrect actions.

Step 6: Write rubric items

Rubric items are evaluated by an LLM judge using pairwise comparison (baseline vs. skill-enhanced). Quality metrics (rubric-based at 40% weight plus overall judgment at 30%) together dominate the composite improvement score.

The three rubric classifications (and how to stay in "outcome")

The overfitting judge classifies each rubric item:

ClassificationDescriptionGoal
outcomeTests whether the agent reached a correct result. Describes WHAT, not HOW.Target this
techniqueTests whether the agent used a skill-specific procedure.Minimize
vocabularyTests whether the agent used specific terminology from the skill.Avoid

Rubric writing rules

  1. Test outcomes, not methods. Write "Identified the root cause of the build failure" -- not "Replayed the binlog using dotnet build /flp."
  2. Allow alternative approaches. If multiple valid solutions exist, the rubric item should accept any of them.
  3. Never reference the skill by name or use phrasing copied directly from the SKILL.md.
  4. Don't test pre-existing LLM knowledge. If the LLM already knows something (common APIs, standard syntax, basic escaping), testing for it adds no signal.
  5. Test findings, not diagnostic steps. Write "Correctly determined that the root cause is a missing PackageReference" -- not "Used dotnet restore to check package resolution."
  6. Each item should be independently evaluable. Avoid compound items that test multiple things.

Examples

Well-designed (outcome-focused):

rubric:
  - "Correctly identified the missing NuGet package as the root cause of the build failure"
  - "Recognized that downstream project failures were cascading from the root cause, not independent errors"
  - "Suggested a concrete fix that would resolve the root cause"

Overfitted (vocabulary/technique):

rubric:
  - "Replayed the binary log using 'dotnet build /flp:v=diag'"      # technique: gates on specific command
  - "Measured cold, warm, and no-op build scenarios"                  # vocabulary: uses skill's labels
  - "Used the --clreventlevel flag with dotnet trace collect"         # vocabulary: gates on specific flag

Step 7: Add optional constraints

expect_tools: ["bash"]           # Agent must use these tools
reject_tools: ["create_file"]    # Agent must NOT use these tools
max_turns: 10                    # Maximum agent iterations
max_tokens: 5000                 # Maximum token budget

Use constraints sparingly -- only when the scenario specifically requires or forbids certain agent behaviors.

Step 8: Add non-activation scenarios with expect_activation: false

Many skills have clear boundaries -- situations where the skill should recognize it does not apply and decline gracefully. Test these boundaries using expect_activation: false.

How expect_activation: false works

When a scenario has expect_activation: false:

  1. All three runs still execute (baseline, skilled-isolated, skilled-plugin) and assertions are evaluated on each. The flag does not change which runs are performed.
  2. Activation verdict is inverted -- if the skill is not activated for this prompt, the evaluator reports it as [Info] not activated (expected) instead of treating it as a failure.
  3. The scenario is excluded from the noise test -- the multi-skill activation test only runs positive (expect_activation: true) scenarios.

When to use non-activation scenarios

Add expect_activation: false scenarios when the skill has explicit "When Not to Use" boundaries. Common patterns:

PatternExample
Wrong input formatSkill handles Android tombstones; scenario provides an iOS crash log
Out-of-scope requestSkill collects dumps; scenario asks to *analyze* a dump
Incompatible project typeSkill converts PackageReference to CPM; scenario has packages.config
Wrong framework versionSkill migrates.NET 8 to 9; scenario provides a.NET 8 app and asks for.NET 10 migration
Prerequisite not metSkill requires a specific file format that isn't present

Example: Wrong input format

- name: "Reject iOS crash log as wrong format"
  prompt: "I have a crash log file at crashlog_ios.txt from a crashed app. Please symbolicate the .NET runtime frames."
  expect_activation: false
  setup:
    copy_test_files: true
  assertions:
    - type: "output_matches"
      pattern: "(iOS|Apple|not.*(Android|tombstone)|wrong.*(format|type))"
  rubric:
    - "Recognized that this is an iOS crash log, not an Android tombstone"
    - "Did NOT attempt to apply the Android tombstone symbolication workflow"
    - "Explained that iOS crash logs require a different symbolication process"

Example: Out-of-scope request

- name: "Decline dump analysis request"
  prompt: |
    I already have a .dmp crash dump file from my .NET app. Can you help
    me analyze it to find the root cause of the crash?
  expect_activation: false
  assertions:
    - type: "output_matches"
      pattern: "(out of scope|not cover|does not|cannot|only.*collect)"
  rubric:
    - "Clearly states that dump analysis is out of scope for this skill"
    - "Does not attempt to open or analyze the dump file"
    - "Does not install analysis tools like dotnet-dump analyze, lldb, or windbg"
  timeout: 30

Example: Incompatible project type

- name: "Decline CPM conversion for packages.config project"
  prompt: "Convert my simple-packages-config/LegacyApp project to Central Package Management."
  expect_activation: false
  setup:
    copy_test_files: true
  assertions:
    - type: "output_contains"
      value: "packages.config"
    - type: "file_not_exists"
      path: "simple-packages-config/Directory.Packages.props"
  rubric:
    - "Detected the project uses packages.config instead of PackageReference format"
    - "Informed the user that CPM requires PackageReference and cannot be applied to packages.config projects"
    - "Suggested migrating from packages.config to PackageReference first"
    - "Did not attempt to create Directory.Packages.props or modify any project files"

Rubric guidelines for non-activation scenarios

Non-activation rubric items typically verify three things:

  1. Recognition -- The agent identified *why* the skill doesn't apply.
  2. Restraint -- The agent did NOT attempt the skill's workflow (no file modifications, no tool installs).
  3. Redirection -- The agent suggested the correct alternative approach or next step.

Step 9: Validate the eval.yaml

Run the static validator:

dotnet run --project eng/skill-validator/src/SkillValidator.csproj -- check --plugin ./plugins/<plugin>

Then run evaluation (at least 3 runs for reliable results):

# For skills:
dotnet run --project eng/skill-validator/src/SkillValidator.csproj -- evaluate \
  --runs 3 \
  --tests-dir tests/<plugin> \
  plugins/<plugin>/skills/<skill-name>

# For agents:
dotnet run --project eng/skill-validator/src/SkillValidator.csproj -- evaluate \
  --runs 3 \
  --tests-dir tests/<plugin> \
  plugins/<plugin>/agents/<agent-name>.agent.md

eval.yaml Template

scenarios:
  - name: "<Describe what the agent should accomplish>"
    prompt: "<Natural developer request -- do not mention the skill>"
    setup:
      copy_test_files: true
    assertions:
      - type: "output_contains"
        value: "<key term that a correct response must include>"
      - type: "exit_success"
    rubric:
      - "<Outcome: what the agent should have identified or produced>"
      - "<Outcome: what fix or recommendation the agent should have given>"
      - "<Outcome: what incorrect approach the agent should have avoided>"
    timeout: 120

  - name: "<Describe situation where the skill should NOT apply>"
    prompt: "<Request that superficially matches the skill but falls outside its scope>"
    expect_activation: false
    setup:
      copy_test_files: true
    assertions:
      - type: "output_matches"
        pattern: "<pattern matching the agent's explanation of why it cannot help>"
      - type: "file_not_exists"
        path: "<file the skill would create if it incorrectly activated>"
    rubric:
      - "<Recognition: agent identified why the skill does not apply>"
      - "<Restraint: agent did not attempt the skill's workflow>"
      - "<Redirection: agent suggested the correct alternative>"
    timeout: 120

Validation Checklist

After creating a test, verify:

  • Test directory matches tests/<plugin>/<skill-name>/ for skills or tests/<plugin>/agent.<agent-name>/ for agents
  • Target exists at plugins/<plugin>/skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md (skill) or plugins/<plugin>/agents/<agent-name>.agent.md (agent)
  • Every scenario has name, prompt, at least one assertion, and rubric items
  • Prompts are written as natural developer requests (no skill/agent name references)
  • Assertions are broad enough that multiple valid approaches pass
  • Rubric items test outcomes, not specific techniques or vocabulary
  • Fixture files are present when copy_test_files: true is used
  • source paths in setup files point to existing fixture files
  • additional_required_skills/additional_required_agents names exist in the same plugin
  • Timeouts are reasonable for the scenario complexity
  • Non-activation scenarios use expect_activation: false and verify recognition, restraint, and redirection
  • dotnet run --project eng/skill-validator/src/SkillValidator.csproj -- check passes

Common Pitfalls

PitfallSolution
Prompt mentions the skill by nameRewrite as a natural developer request describing the problem
Prompt mentions the agent by nameSame as above — agent name in prompts biases the baseline
Rubric tests a specific diagnostic commandRewrite to test the finding or outcome that command produces
Assertion gates on syntax the LLM already knowsUse a broader pattern or test the result instead
All rubric items test the same aspectDiversify: test identification, fix quality, and error avoidance
Missing fixture files for copy_test_filesAdd the required project/source files alongside eval.yaml
Timeout too short for buildsUse 300-600s for scenarios that compile or run benchmarks
Single scenario covers the entire skillBreak into focused scenarios testing different aspects
Compound rubric items testing multiple thingsSplit into separate, independently-evaluable items
No non-activation scenarios for skill with clear boundariesAdd expect_activation: false scenarios for each "When Not to Use" case
Agent test missing additional_required_skillsIf the agent routes to specific skills, declare them so the isolated run loads them

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

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

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

Codex

34.44%
按下载量换算469

Claude

31.7%
按下载量换算432

Cursor

20.13%
按下载量换算274

Gemini CLI

9.69%
按下载量换算132

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/skills --skill create-skill-test 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills