Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索敏感数据github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

multi-agent-e2e-validation多 Agent 端到端验证

Agent Skill

multi-agent-e2e-validation 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

2,130

周安装

87

GitHub Stars

38

下载量

682
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:multi-agent-e2e-validation(多 Agent 端到端验证)
来源仓库:https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills
仓库路径:skills/multi-agent-e2e-validation
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill multi-agent-e2e-validation
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/terrylica/cc-skills --skill multi-agent-e2e-validation

简介

multi-agent-e2e-validation 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于关键词搜索、任务场景匹配或来源线索梳理等研究检索任务。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 terrylica/cc-skills 仓库安装使用。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态及是否触发联网或文件操作。
  • 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

Multi-Agent E2E Validation

Self-Evolving Skill: This skill improves through use. If instructions are wrong, parameters drifted, or a workaround was needed — fix this file immediately, don't defer. Only update for real, reproducible issues.

Overview

Prescriptive workflow for spawning parallel validation agents to comprehensively test database refactors. Successfully identified 5 critical bugs (100% system failure rate) in QuestDB migration that would have shipped in production.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

  • Database refactors (e.g., v3.x file-based → v4.x QuestDB)
  • Schema migrations requiring validation
  • Bulk data ingestion pipeline testing
  • System migrations with multiple validation layers
  • Pre-release validation for database-centric systems

Key outcomes:

  • Parallel agent execution for comprehensive coverage
  • Structured validation reporting (VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md)
  • Bug discovery with severity classification (Critical/Medium/Low)
  • Release readiness assessment

Core Methodology

1. Validation Architecture (3-Layer Model)

Layer 1: Environment Setup

  • Container orchestration (Colima/Docker)
  • Database deployment and schema application
  • Connectivity validation (ILP, PostgreSQL, HTTP ports)
  • Configuration file creation and validation

Layer 2: Data Flow Validation

  • Bulk ingestion testing (CloudFront → QuestDB)
  • Performance benchmarking against SLOs
  • Multi-month data ingestion
  • Deduplication testing (re-ingestion scenarios)
  • Type conversion validation (FLOAT→LONG casts)

Layer 3: Query Interface Validation

  • High-level query methods (get_latest, get_range, execute_sql)
  • Edge cases (limit=1, cross-month boundaries)
  • Error handling (invalid symbols, dates, parameters)
  • Gap detection SQL compatibility

2. Agent Orchestration Pattern

Sequential vs Parallel Execution:

Agent 1 (Environment) → [SEQUENTIAL - prerequisite]
  ↓
Agent 2 (Bulk Loader) → [PARALLEL with Agent 3]
Agent 3 (Query Interface) → [PARALLEL with Agent 2]

Dependency Rule: Environment validation must pass before data flow/query validation

Dynamic Todo Management:

  • Start with high-level plan (ADR-defined phases)
  • Prune completed agents from todo list
  • Grow todo list when bugs discovered (e.g., Bug #5 found by Agent 3)
  • Update VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md incrementally

3. Validation Script Structure

Each agent produces:

  1. Test Script (e.g., test_bulk_loader.py)

- 5+ test functions with clear pass/fail criteria - Structured output (test name, result, details) - Summary report at end

  1. Artifacts (logs, config files, evidence)
  2. Findings Report (bugs, severity, fix proposals)

Example Test Structure:

def test_feature(conn):
    """Test 1: Feature description"""
    print("=" * 80)
    print("TEST 1: Feature description")
    print("=" * 80)

    results = {}

    # Test 1a: Subtest name
    print("\n1a. Testing subtest:")
    result_1a = perform_test()
    print(f"   Result: {result_1a}")
    results["subtest_1a"] = result_1a == expected_1a

    # Summary
    print("\n" + "-" * 80)
    all_passed = all(results.values())
    print(f"Test 1 Results: {'✓ PASS' if all_passed else '✗ FAIL'}")
    for test_name, passed in results.items():
        print(f"  - {test_name}: {'✓' if passed else '✗'}")

    return {"success": all_passed, "details": results}

4. Bug Classification and Tracking

Severity Levels:

  • 🔴 Critical: 100% system failure (e.g., API mismatch, timestamp corruption)
  • 🟡 Medium: Degraded functionality (e.g., below SLO performance)
  • 🟢 Low: Minor issues, edge cases

Bug Report Format:

#### Bug N: Descriptive Name (**SEVERITY** - Status)

**Location**: `file/path.py:line`

**Issue**: One-sentence description

**Impact**: Quantified impact (e.g., "100% ingestion failure")

**Root Cause**: Technical explanation

**Fix Applied**: Code changes with before/after

**Verification**: Test results proving fix

**Status**: ✅ FIXED / ⚠️ PARTIAL / ❌ OPEN

5. Release Readiness Decision Framework

Go/No-Go Criteria:

BLOCKER = Any Critical bug unfixed
SHIP = All Critical bugs fixed + (Medium bugs acceptable OR fixed)
DEFER = >3 Medium bugs unfixed OR any High-severity bug

Example Decision:

  • 5 Critical bugs found → all fixed ✅
  • 1 Medium bug (performance 55% below SLO) → acceptable ✅
  • Verdict: RELEASE READY

Workflow: Step-by-Step

Step 1: Create Validation Plan (ADR-Driven)

Input: ADR document (e.g., ADR-0002 QuestDB Refactor) Output: Validation plan with 3-7 agents

Plan Structure:

## Validation Agents

### Agent 1: Environment Setup

- Deploy QuestDB via Docker
- Apply schema.sql
- Validate connectivity (ILP, PG, HTTP)
- Create .env configuration

### Agent 2: Bulk Loader Validation

- Test CloudFront → QuestDB ingestion
- Benchmark performance (target: >100K rows/sec)
- Validate deduplication (re-ingestion test)
- Multi-month ingestion test

### Agent 3: Query Interface Validation

- Test get_latest() with various limits
- Test get_range() with date boundaries
- Test execute_sql() with parameterized queries
- Test detect_gaps() SQL compatibility
- Test error handling (invalid inputs)

Step 2: Execute Agent 1 (Environment)

Directory Structure:

tmp/e2e-validation/
  agent-1-env/
    test_environment_setup.py
    questdb.log
    config.env
    schema-check.txt

Validation Checklist:

  • ✅ Container running
  • ✅ Ports accessible (9009 ILP, 8812 PG, 9000 HTTP)
  • ✅ Schema applied without errors
  • ✅.env file created

Step 3: Execute Agents 2-3 in Parallel

Agent 2: Bulk Loader

tmp/e2e-validation/
  agent-2-bulk/
    test_bulk_loader.py
    ingestion_benchmark.txt
    deduplication_test.txt

Agent 3: Query Interface

tmp/e2e-validation/
  agent-3-query/
    test_query_interface.py
    gap_detection_test.txt

Execution:

# Terminal 1
cd tmp/e2e-validation/agent-2-bulk
uv run python test_bulk_loader.py

# Terminal 2
cd tmp/e2e-validation/agent-3-query
uv run python test_query_interface.py

Step 4: Document Findings in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md

Template:

# E2E Validation Findings Report

**Validation ID**: ADR-XXXX
**Branch**: feat/database-refactor
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Target Release**: vX.Y.Z
**Status**: [BLOCKED / READY / IN_PROGRESS]

## Executive Summary

E2E validation discovered **N critical bugs** that would have caused [impact]:

| Finding | Severity | Status | Impact       | Agent   |
| ------- | -------- | ------ | ------------ | ------- |
| Bug 1   | Critical | Fixed  | 100% failure | Agent 2 |

**Recommendation**: [RELEASE READY / BLOCKED / DEFER]

## Agent 1: Environment Setup - [STATUS]

...

## Agent 2: [Name] - [STATUS]

...

Step 5: Iterate on Fixes

For each bug:

  1. Document in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md with 🔴/🟡/🟢 severity
  2. Apply fix to source code
  3. Re-run failing test
  4. Update bug status to ✅ FIXED
  5. Commit with semantic message (e.g., fix: correct timestamp parsing in CSV ingestion)

Example Fix Commit:

git add src/gapless_crypto_clickhouse/collectors/questdb_bulk_loader.py
git commit -m "fix: prevent pandas from treating first CSV column as index

BREAKING CHANGE: All timestamps were defaulting to epoch 0 (1970-01)
due to pandas read_csv() auto-indexing. Added index_col=False to
preserve first column as data.

Fixes #ABC-123"

Step 6: Final Validation and Release Decision

Run all tests:

/usr/bin/env bash << 'SKILL_SCRIPT_EOF'
cd tmp/e2e-validation
for agent in agent-*; do
    echo "=== Running $agent ==="
    cd $agent
    uv run python test_*.py
    cd ..
done
SKILL_SCRIPT_EOF

Update VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md status:

  • Count Critical bugs: X fixed, Y open
  • Count Medium bugs: X fixed, Y open
  • Apply decision framework
  • Update Status field to ✅ RELEASE READY or ❌ BLOCKED

Real-World Example: QuestDB Refactor Validation

Context: Migrating from file-based storage (v3.x) to QuestDB (v4.0.0)

Bugs Found:

  1. 🔴 Sender API mismatch - Used non-existent Sender.from_uri() instead of Sender.from_conf()
  2. 🔴 Type conversion - number_of_trades sent as FLOAT, schema expects LONG
  3. 🔴 Timestamp parsing - pandas treating first column as index → epoch 0 timestamps
  4. 🔴 Deduplication - WAL mode doesn't provide UPSERT semantics (needed DEDUP ENABLE UPSERT KEYS)
  5. 🔴 SQL incompatibility - detect_gaps() used nested window functions (QuestDB unsupported)

Impact: Without this validation, v4.0.0 would ship with 100% data corruption and 100% ingestion failure

Outcome: All 5 bugs fixed, system validated, v4.0.0 released successfully

Common Pitfalls

1. Skipping Environment Validation

Bad: Assume Docker/database is working, jump to data ingestion tests ✅ Good: Agent 1 validates environment first, catches port conflicts, schema errors early

2. Serial Agent Execution

Bad: Run Agent 2, wait for completion, then run Agent 3 ✅ Good: Run Agent 2 & 3 in parallel (no dependency between them)

3. Manual Test Reporting

Bad: Copy/paste test output into Slack/email ✅ Good: Structured VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md with severity, status, fix tracking

4. Ignoring Medium Bugs

Bad: "Performance is 55% below SLO, but we'll fix it later" ✅ Good: Document in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md, make explicit go/no-go decision

5. No Re-validation After Fixes

Bad: Apply fix, assume it works, move on ✅ Good: Re-run failing test, update status in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md

Resources

scripts/

Not applicable - validation scripts are project-specific (stored in tmp/e2e-validation/)

references/

  • example_validation_findings.md - Complete VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md template
  • agent_test_template.py - Template for creating validation test scripts
  • bug_severity_classification.md - Detailed severity criteria and examples

assets/

Not applicable - validation artifacts are project-specific


Troubleshooting

IssueCauseSolution
Container not startingColima/Docker not runningRun colima start before Agent 1
Port conflictsPorts already in useStop conflicting containers or use different ports
Schema application failsInvalid SQL syntaxCheck schema.sql for database-specific compatibility
Agent 2/3 fail without Agent 1Environment not validatedEnsure Agent 1 completes before starting Agent 2/3
Test script import errorsMissing dependenciesRun uv pip install in agent directory
Bug status not updatingVALIDATION_FINDINGS.md staleManually refresh status after each fix
Parallel agents interferenceShared resources conflictEnsure agents use isolated directories
Decision unclearSeverity mixed Critical/MediumApply Go/No-Go criteria strictly per documentation

Post-Execution Reflection

After this skill completes, reflect before closing the task:

  1. Locate yourself. — Find this SKILL.md's canonical path before editing.
  2. What failed? — Fix the instruction that caused it.
  3. What worked better than expected? — Promote to recommended practice.
  4. What drifted? — Fix any script, reference, or dependency that no longer matches reality.
  5. Log it. — Evolution-log entry with trigger, fix, and evidence.

Do NOT defer. The next invocation inherits whatever you leave behind.

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

27.83%
按下载量换算190

OpenCode

24.72%
按下载量换算169

Antigravity

19.02%
按下载量换算130

Gemini CLI

12.7%
按下载量换算87

windsurf

8.51%
按下载量换算58

trae

3.13%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

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