Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
开发敏感数据clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

post-dev-verification开发后验证

Agent Skill

post-dev-verification 用于补充开发相关能力,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要让 Agent 承接开发相关任务时使用。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

3,170

周安装

127

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

1,026
OpenClaw

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

MIT-0

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:post-dev-verification(开发后验证)
来源仓库:https://github.com/leonardo-lb/post-dev-verification
安装命令:
openclaw skills install post-dev-verification
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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install post-dev-verification

简介

用于开发完成后自动触发全栈验证流程,提升代码交付质量。

  • 适合在 OpenClaw 中集成单元测试、接口校验与部署前检查环节。
  • 通过 clawhub 安装后,可绑定 CI/CD 流程实现自动化验证。
  • 需确认测试覆盖范围与执行环境,防止跳过必要安全检测。
  • 建议结合项目实际需求调整验证策略,避免过度消耗资源。

SKILL.md

name
post-dev-verification
description
>-
Covers
test design (MFT/INV/DIR taxonomy), quality metrics (4 layers, 15 metrics), feedback-driven fix loop,
metadata
requires
docker (optional), npm/pip/mvn/go (auto-detected), database client (optional)
capabilities
read_project_files, run_tests, start_stop_services, network_access
safety_isolation
Always run in a test/sandbox environment. Never use production credentials or production data.
safety_credentials
Uses only test accounts, test API keys, and environment-variable-sourced tokens. Never prompts for production secrets.
safety_side_effects
Starts/stops services, runs DB migrations, seeds test data, deletes test artifacts. All scoped to test environment.
safety_recommendation
Run Phase 0 (environment analysis) first to review what will be accessed before proceeding to execution phases.

Post-Development Verification

Automated full-stack quality verification after development. Real execution by default -- mock is the last resort. Deliverability is judged by external calls (HTTP requests, CLI invocations, browser interactions), not by internal function calls passing in isolation.

Core Philosophy: Real Execution First

Default realism level is L2: internal services run for real, only uncontrollable external dependencies (third-party APIs, paid services) may be mocked.

Downgrade signals (auto-detected from user intent):

  • "快速验证" / "只测逻辑" / "mock就行" -> L0
  • Pure function / utility library with no I/O -> L0
  • Local environment cannot start service -> L1 (report reason)
  • "生产级别" / "全面测试" / "验收测试" -> L3

Realism level definitions:

LevelDescriptionMock Ratio
L0All dependencies mocked100%
L1Core service real, databases mocked<=50%
L2Internal services real, external deps mocked<=30%
L3All services real (sandbox/test accounts)0%

Workflow

Execute phases sequentially. Each phase produces required artifacts for the next.

Phase 0: Environment Awareness
  v
Phase 1: Test Design (with anti-pattern scan)
  v
Phase 2: Execution & Evaluation
  v
Phase 3: Feedback & Fix Loop (if gates fail)
  v
Phase 4: Validation & Output

Safety Requirements

This skill starts services, runs migrations, and makes network calls. Before execution:

  1. Run in isolation -- use a test/sandbox environment, never production systems
  2. Use test credentials only -- test accounts, test API keys, environment-variable tokens; never supply production secrets
  3. Phase 0 first -- review the Environment Report before allowing execution phases (Phase 2+) to understand what will be accessed
  4. Scoped side effects -- all service starts, DB migrations, test data seeding, and cleanup are limited to the test environment
  5. User control -- the user can downgrade realism level (e.g., "快速验证" for L0) to reduce scope at any time

Phase 0: Environment Awareness

Gather project context and determine feasibility before designing tests.

0.1 Project Analysis

Identify:

  • Language & Framework: from config files (package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod, etc.)
  • Project type: monorepo / microservice / full-stack / library / CLI tool
  • Monorepo scope (if applicable): identify which packages/services are affected by the current change
  • Test runner: detect existing test framework (pytest, vitest, jest, go test, etc.)
  • Coverage tool: detect coverage support (pytest-cov, vitest --coverage, nyc, etc.)
  • Build/start commands: from scripts, Docker configs, Makefiles

0.2 Dependency Mapping

For each dependency service, classify:

  • Controllable (self-hosted, has test env) -> must run real at L2+
  • Uncontrollable (third-party, paid, no sandbox) -> acceptable to mock

0.3 Realism Level Decision

  1. Check user intent signals -> override default if found
  2. Check test target type -> pure functions auto-downgrade to L0
  3. Assess local environment feasibility -> downgrade if services can't start
  4. Record decision with rationale in the environment report

0.4 Environment Feasibility Check

Verify:

  • Required tools installed (runtime, package manager, Docker if needed)
  • Dependency services available (databases, caches, message queues)
  • Target service can start locally
  • Environment consistency: Docker/config matches production; environment variables and config files are complete; dependency service versions align with deployment target

Output: Environment Report -- language, framework, test runner, realism level, service availability, any blockers, consistency gaps.


Phase 1: Test Design

Design test scenarios systematically using the test taxonomy. Do NOT write test code before completing analysis.

1.1 Pre-Analysis (Anti Leap-to-Code)

Before writing any test code, complete:

  • Code structure analysis: control flow, function signatures, module dependencies
  • Dependency analysis: external services, databases, API contracts involved
  • Constraint analysis: business rules, data invariants, input/output contracts
If test code references modules/imports not in the actual codebase -> hallucinated dependency. Remove and use actual project references.

1.2 Scenario Identification

Map each requirement to test scenarios:

  • Functional scenarios (one per acceptance criterion minimum)
  • Integration scenarios (cross-module, data flow, API contract)
  • Error/exception scenarios (all error handling branches)
  • End-to-end business flows (complete user journeys that traverse multiple steps/services -- e.g., "register -> verify email -> login -> place order -> pay -> receive confirmation"; "admin creates user -> assigns role -> user logs in with correct permissions"). Each identified critical business flow MUST have at least one E2E test validated through external calls.

Anti-pattern check: If >80% of scenarios are happy path -> Happy Path Obsession detected. Add error, boundary, and exception scenarios until >=30% target error scenarios.

1.3 Apply Test Taxonomy

For each scenario, apply the appropriate taxonomy category. Load detailed guidance from references/test-taxonomy.md when needed.

CategoryPurposeExample
MFT (Minimum Functionality)Verify each decision branch/leaf node worksEach code path returns correct result
INV (Invariance)Same logical request -> same result, different phrasings"show data" = "display info" = "list records"
DIR (Directional Expectation)Vary one input -> predict output directionLarger input -> larger output (monotonic)

Coverage rule: Each of the 3 categories MUST have >=1 test. Taxonomy coverage = 100% is a hard gate.

1.4 Boundary Value Coverage

For every input parameter, identify and cover:

  • Numeric: min-1, min, min+1, typical, max-1, max, max+1
  • String/Collection: empty, single item, typical, max, exceeds max, special chars, Unicode
  • Optional: not provided (default), explicit null/undefined, explicit empty

1.5 Real vs Mock Classification

Classify each scenario based on realism level:

  • L2+: Internal service interactions -> must run real
  • Any level: Uncontrollable external deps -> acceptable to mock (use realistic stubs)
  • Track: test realism ratio = real tests / total tests >= 70% (hard gate at L2)

1.6 Visible/Hidden Test Separation

After designing all scenarios:

  • Select 30-40% as hidden tests (prioritize edge cases, adversarial inputs, error scenarios)
  • Hidden tests are NOT exposed during fix loop -- reserved for Phase 4 validation
  • Record the split in the test plan

1.7 Anti-Pattern Scan

Run the pre-execution checklist. Load detailed guidance from references/anti-patterns.md when needed.

Anti-PatternCheckAction
Happy Path Obsession>80% scenarios are normal flowAdd error/boundary tests
Weak Assertionsassert(result != null), assert(status == 200) without bodyReplace with specific value checks
Leap-to-CodeTest code written before structure analysisRedo analysis first
Hallucinated DependenciesReferences non-existent modules/importsReplace with actual references
Missing TraceabilityGeneric test names (test_1, test_func)Rename to describe specific behavior

Rule: Each test name MUST describe the specific behavior being tested (e.g., test_submit_empty_form_returns_422). Each test MUST link to the requirement it validates.

Fix all detected anti-patterns before proceeding to Phase 2.

Phase 1 Output

  • Test plan with all scenarios (tagged: MFT/INV/DIR, real/mock, visible/hidden)
  • Boundary value coverage matrix
  • Anti-pattern scan results (all clear)

Phase 2: Execution & Evaluation

2.1 Environment Preparation

Start services in dependency order with health checks:

for each service in dependency_order:
    start service
    wait_for_health_check (port/ping/readiness endpoint)
    if health_check fails:
        report blocker, downgrade realism level

Prepare test data using project's existing seed/migration mechanisms when available.

System boot validation -- before running any tests, verify the system itself is deliverable:

  • The target service starts successfully from a clean state (no cached artifacts)
  • All health/readiness endpoints return healthy
  • Startup logs contain no ERROR-level entries (WARNs are logged for review)
  • Required configuration and environment variables are complete
  • If any boot validation fails -> this is a delivery blocker, report immediately

2.2 Test Execution

Run tests with coverage enabled. The test suite MUST include an E2E layer validated through external calls (HTTP requests to running services, CLI invocations, or browser interactions -- not internal function imports). Load execution templates from references/real-e2e-templates.md when designing this layer.

  • Detect and use the project's native test runner and coverage tool
  • Execute all visible tests (hidden tests reserved)
  • E2E layer: exercise all identified critical business flows through external interfaces. If the project exposes an HTTP API, at minimum send real HTTP requests to each endpoint. If CLI, invoke real commands. If UI, drive real browser interactions.
  • Capture: pass/fail per test, assertion output, error messages, coverage data

2.3 Metrics Collection

Compute all 4 layers of metrics. Load detailed definitions from references/metrics.md when needed.

Design Quality (computed after test design, before execution):

MetricFormulaThreshold
Scenario Coveragecovered requirements / total requirementsMUST = 100%
Taxonomy Coveragecategories with >=1 test / 3MUST = 100%
Boundary Value Coveragecovered boundary points / total identifiedSHOULD >= 90%
Data Feature Coveragecovered data dimensions / total identifiedSHOULD >= 85%

Execution Quality (computed after test run):

MetricFormulaThreshold
Pass Ratepassed tests / total testsSHOULD >= 95%
Code Coveragestatements covered / total statementsSHOULD >= 80%
Assertion Densitytotal assertions / total testsSHOULD >= 2.0
Weak Assertion Ratioweak assertions / total assertionsSHOULD <= 10%
Test Realism Ratioreal tests / total testsMUST >= 70%

Delivery Quality (computed from test results):

MetricFormulaThreshold
Expectation Match Ratefully matching tests / total tests (core: MUST 100%)Core: MUST=100%, Overall: SHOULD>=95%
Boundary Handling Ratepassing boundary tests / total boundary testsSHOULD >= 90%
Regression Safetystill-passing tests / previously-passing testsMUST = 100%
Business Flow CoverageE2E-verified business flows / total identified business flowsMUST = 100%

Iteration Efficiency (computed during fix loop):

MetricFormulaThreshold
Fix Convergence Ratenewly passing / previous failures<20% for 2 rounds -> STOP
Fix Introduction Ratenewly failing / total fix attempts>30% -> STOP

Phase 3: Feedback & Fix Loop

Triggered when hard gate metrics are not met.

3.1 Generate Feedback Report

Structure the report as JSON. Load schema from references/feedback-schema.md when needed.

Key sections:

  • round: current iteration number
  • project_context: language, framework, test runner, realism level
  • metrics: all 4 layers with pass/fail per metric
  • gate_result: "pass" | "fix_and_retry" | "stop_and_report"
  • failures_grouped: cluster by root cause, each with affected tests + fix direction
  • fix_history: timeline of each round's metrics before/after, fix description, newly passing/failing
  • hidden_tests: total count, run status, results (null during fix loop, populated in Phase 4)
  • anti_patterns_detected: names of anti-patterns found in current test suite
  • next_action: what the Agent should do next

3.2 Fix Prioritization

Address the largest failure cluster first (most affected tests) -- highest probability of improving overall pass rate.

3.3 Convergence Control -- Triple Exit Conditions

ConditionThresholdAction
Max iterations5 roundsStop, report current state
No convergence<20% convergence rate for 2 consecutive roundsStop, suggest fundamental issue
Regression>30% fix introduction rate in any roundStop, suggest wrong fix approach

3.4 Fix Loop Cycle

while round <= 5 AND not converged_stop AND not regression_stop:
    read feedback report -> identify largest failure cluster
    apply targeted fix to code/tests
    re-run full test suite (or failed-only if convergence is high)
    compute new metrics
    generate new feedback report
    check exit conditions
    record iteration in fix history

Phase 3 Output

  • Fix history timeline (round, metrics before/after, fix description, newly passing/failing)
  • Final feedback report with gate_result

Phase 4: Validation & Output

4.1 Hidden Test Validation

Run ALL hidden tests (not exposed during fix loop):

  • If hidden tests pass -> validates that fixes are genuine, not overfitted
  • If hidden tests fail -> report failures, do NOT re-enter fix loop

4.2 Quality Report

Generate final quality report:

  • Verdict: "PASS" (all hard gates met) or "FAIL" (hard gates not met) with specific reasons
  • All 4 layers of metrics with pass/fail status
  • Fix history timeline
  • Hidden test validation results
  • Anti-pattern scan summary
  • Recommendations for improvement

4.3 Reusable Test Scripts

Output test scripts that can run independently in CI/CD:

  • Follow project's native test format and directory conventions
  • Include run instructions: prerequisites, service startup, how to run, expected output
  • Include environment documentation: services needed, config required, ports

Quality Gate Quick Reference

Hard Gates (MUST pass -- blocks delivery)

MetricThreshold
Scenario Coverage= 100%
Taxonomy Coverage= 100%
Test Realism Ratio>= 70%
Expectation Match (core)= 100%
Regression Safety= 100%
Business Flow Coverage= 100%

Soft Targets (SHOULD pass -- reported, does not block unless configured)

MetricThreshold
Boundary Value Coverage>= 90%
Data Feature Coverage>= 85%
Pass Rate>= 95%
Code Coverage>= 80%
Assertion Density>= 2.0
Weak Assertion Ratio<= 10%
Boundary Handling Rate>= 90%

References

Load these files as needed during the workflow:

  • references/metrics.md -- Complete definitions for all 14 metrics: calculation formulas, threshold rationale, and what it means when a metric is not met. Load when computing or interpreting metrics.
  • references/test-taxonomy.md -- Detailed guidance for MFT/INV/DIR test categories with pseudocode examples, plus systematic boundary value analysis methods. Load during Phase 1 test design.
  • references/feedback-schema.md -- Full JSON Schema for feedback reports with a populated example. Load when generating feedback reports in Phase 3.
  • references/anti-patterns.md -- Detailed detection methods and fix strategies for all 5 anti-patterns: Happy Path Obsession, Weak Assertions, Leap-to-Code, Hallucinated Dependencies, Missing Traceability. Load during Phase 1 anti-pattern scan or Phase 3 feedback.
  • references/real-e2e-templates.md -- Environment preparation scripts and real E2E test templates for HTTP API, CLI tools, and Browser automation. Load during Phase 2 environment preparation and test execution.

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

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

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

OpenClaw

87.32%
按下载量换算896

安全审计

VirusTotal

可疑

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

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