Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

ln-633-test-value-auditorln 633 测试值审核员

Agent Skill

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

总安装

6,448

周安装

266

GitHub Stars

437

下载量

2,107
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:ln-633-test-value-auditor(ln 633 测试值审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-633-test-value-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-633-test-value-auditor
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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-633-test-value-auditor

简介

用于安全审计、权限检查和常见漏洞排查,适合梳理敏感配置和鉴权逻辑。

  • 适用于需要分析凭据风险或生成安全复核清单的场景。
  • 使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,需先确认最小权限和操作边界。
  • 涉及密钥、令牌或用户数据时应脱敏处理,避免影响生产系统。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

SKILL.md

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.

Risk-Based Value Auditor (L3 Worker)

Type: L3 Worker

Specialized worker calculating Usefulness Score for each test.

Purpose & Scope

  • Audit Risk-Based Value (Category 3: Critical Priority)
  • Calculate Usefulness Score = Impact x Probability
  • Make KEEP/REVIEW/REMOVE decisions
  • Calculate compliance score (X/10)

Inputs

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, testFilesMetadata, codebase_root, output_dir.

Workflow

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.

  1. Parse Context: Extract tech stack, Impact/Probability matrices, test file list, output_dir from contextStore
  2. Calculate Scores (Layer 1): For each test: calculate Usefulness Score = Impact x Probability 2b) Context Analysis (Layer 2 -- MANDATORY): Before finalizing REMOVE decisions, ask:

- Is this a regression guard for a known past bug? -> KEEP regardless of Score - Does this test cover a critical business rule (payment, auth) even if Score<10? -> REVIEW, not REMOVE - Is this the only test covering an edge case in a critical flow? -> KEEP

  1. Classify Decisions: KEEP (>=15), REVIEW (10-14), REMOVE (<10)
  2. Collect Findings: Record each REVIEW/REMOVE decision with severity, location (file:line), effort estimate (S/M/L), recommendation
  3. Calculate Score: Count violations by severity, calculate compliance score (X/10)
  4. Write Report: Build full markdown report in memory per shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md, write to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md in single Write call
  5. Return Summary: Return minimal summary to coordinator (see Output Format)

Usefulness Score Calculation

Formula

Usefulness Score = Business Impact (1-5) x Failure Probability (1-5)

Impact Scoring (1-5)

ScoreImpactExamples
5CriticalMoney loss, security breach, data corruption
4HighCore flow breaks (checkout, login, registration)
3MediumFeature partially broken, degraded UX
2LowMinor UX issue, cosmetic bug
1TrivialCosmetic issue, no user impact

Probability Scoring (1-5)

ScoreProbabilityIndicators
5Very HighComplex algorithm, new technology, many dependencies
4HighMultiple dependencies, concurrency, edge cases
3MediumStandard CRUD, framework defaults, established patterns
2LowSimple logic, well-established library, trivial operation
1Very LowTrivial assignment, framework-generated, impossible to break

Decision Thresholds

Score RangeDecisionAction
>=15KEEPTest is valuable, maintain it
10-14REVIEWConsider if E2E already covers this
<10REMOVEDelete test, not worth maintenance cost. Exception: regression guards for known bugs -> KEEP. Tests covering critical business rules (payment, auth) -> REVIEW

Scoring Examples

Example 1: Payment Processing Test

Test: "processPayment calculates discount correctly"
Impact: 5 (Critical -- money calculation)
Probability: 4 (High -- complex algorithm, multiple payment gateways)
Usefulness Score = 5 x 4 = 20
Decision: KEEP

Example 2: Email Validation Test

Test: "validateEmail returns true for valid email"
Impact: 2 (Low -- minor UX issue if broken)
Probability: 2 (Low -- simple regex, well-tested library)
Usefulness Score = 2 x 2 = 4
Decision: REMOVE (likely already covered by E2E registration test)

Example 3: Login Flow Test

Test: "login with valid credentials returns JWT"
Impact: 4 (High -- core flow)
Probability: 3 (Medium -- standard auth flow)
Usefulness Score = 4 x 3 = 12
Decision: REVIEW (if E2E covers, remove; else keep)

Audit Rules

1. Calculate Score for Each Test

Process:

  • Read test file, extract test name/description
  • Analyze code under test (CUT)
  • Determine Impact (1-5)
  • Determine Probability (1-5)
  • Calculate Usefulness Score

2. Classify Decisions

KEEP (>=15):

  • High-value tests (money, security, data integrity)
  • Core flows (checkout, login)
  • Complex algorithms

REVIEW (10-14):

  • Medium-value tests
  • Question: "Is this already covered by E2E?"
  • If yes -> REMOVE; if no -> KEEP

REMOVE (<10):

  • Low-value tests (cosmetic, trivial)
  • Framework/library tests
  • Duplicates of E2E tests

3. Identify Patterns

Common low-value tests (<10):

  • Testing framework behavior
  • Testing trivial getters/setters
  • Testing constant values
  • Testing type annotations

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Severity mapping by Usefulness Score:

  • Score <5 -> CRITICAL (test wastes significant maintenance effort)
  • Score 5-9 -> HIGH (test likely wasteful)
  • Score 10-14 -> MEDIUM (review needed)
  • Score >=15 -> no issue (KEEP)

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write JSON summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md. In managed mode the caller passes both runId and summaryArtifactPath; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.

Write report to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md with category: "Risk-Based Value" and checks: usefulness_score, remove_candidates, review_candidates.

Return summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md.

When summaryArtifactPath is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.

Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-633--global.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Note: Tests with Usefulness Score >=15 (KEEP) are NOT included in findings -- only issues are reported.

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Do not auto-fix: Report only
  • Effort realism: S = <1h, M = 1-4h, L = >4h
  • Score objectivity: Base Impact and Probability on code analysis, not assumptions
  • KEEP tests not reported: Only REVIEW and REMOVE decisions appear in findings
  • Cross-reference E2E: REVIEW decisions depend on whether E2E already covers the scenario

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
  • Usefulness Score calculated for each test (Impact x Probability)
  • Decisions classified: KEEP (>=15), REVIEW (10-14), REMOVE (<10)
  • Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation
  • Score calculated using penalty algorithm
  • Report written to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary written per contract

Reference Files

  • Audit output schema: shared/references/audit_output_schema.md

Version: 3.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-23

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

30.57%
按下载量换算644

Gemini CLI

20.09%
按下载量换算423

Codex

17.81%
按下载量换算375

OpenCode

12.59%
按下载量换算265

Antigravity

7.07%
按下载量换算149

windsurf

3.1%
按下载量换算65

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills