Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索external-servicegithub未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

test-skill-quality测试技能素质

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

196

周安装

8

GitHub Stars

5

下载量

63
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:test-skill-quality(测试技能素质)
来源仓库:https://github.com/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur
仓库路径:skills/test-skill-quality
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill test-skill-quality
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/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill test-skill-quality

简介

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。

  • 适合编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。
  • 使用时需确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免修改真实逻辑。
  • 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。
  • 安装方式:通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库添加。

SKILL.md

Test Skill Quality

Test any skill's instructions by following them literally, documenting every moment they fail to guide the next action, and fixing the root causes.

Trigger boundary

Use this skill when:

  • testing whether a skill's instructions are complete and unambiguous
  • auditing a skill for instructional quality before publishing
  • dogfooding a skill by running its workflow on a real task
  • improving a skill after receiving feedback that it's confusing or incomplete
  • validating that fixes to a skill's instructions actually resolved the original friction

Do not use this skill for:

  • building a new skill from scratch (use build-skills)
  • evaluating the quality of a skill's *output* (use evaluation suites)
  • reviewing code changes in a pull request (use review-pr)
  • general documentation improvements not related to skill instructions

Non-negotiable rules

  1. Follow literally, not intelligently. Suppress domain knowledge. If the instructions don't specify it, record a friction point — even if you "know" the answer.
  2. Test on a real task. Toy examples don't exercise branching logic, error handling, or cross-references. The task must be genuine and non-trivial.
  3. Every derailment gets an ID. Friction points are numbered F-01, F-02,... with P0/P1/P2 severity. No unnamed complaints.
  4. Fix the instructions, not the executor. The remedy is always a text edit to the skill files, never "use a smarter agent."
  5. The derail notes are the primary deliverable. Not a pass/fail verdict. A structured document showing what broke and why.
  6. Verify after fixing. Run grep-based consistency checks and confirm routing integrity after edits.

Required workflow

1. Select the test subject and task

Choose:

  • The skill to test — any skill with a SKILL.md and optional references
  • The test task — a real, representative task within the skill's trigger boundary

The test task must be:

  • Genuinely within the skill's scope (not an edge case)
  • Complex enough to exercise the full workflow (not a one-step operation)
  • Executable in the current environment (required tools available)

Record the test metadata:

Skill under test: [name]
Test task: [one-line description]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Method: Follow SKILL.md steps N–M exactly as written

2. Pre-scan the skill

Before executing, read through the skill once:

  • Read SKILL.md fully — note total steps, branching points, cross-references
  • Tree the references/ directory
  • List external dependencies (tools, MCP servers, APIs)
  • Note the skill's declared trigger boundary

Do NOT execute anything during this step. This is orientation only.

3. Execute literally (the core loop)

For each step in the skill's workflow:

  1. Read only the current step. Do not look ahead.
  2. Attempt to execute using only the information provided in the skill.
  3. Record the outcome:

- Clean pass — step was unambiguous and executable. - Derailment — you could not determine the next action from the instructions alone. Record a friction point. - Implicit knowledge used — you could execute, but only because you knew something not stated. Record a lower-severity friction point.

For each derailment, write:

**F-[NN] — [short title]** (P[0-2])
[What happened, what the instructions said, what was missing or ambiguous.]
Fix: [Specific text edit that would prevent this derailment.]

See references/friction-classification.md for severity assignment rules.

4. Collect evidence

After completing all steps, calculate:

MetricValue
Total steps attempted
Clean passes
P0 (blocks progress)
P1 (causes confusion)
P2 (minor annoyance)

Build a derailment density map showing which workflow phases have the most friction.

Tag each friction point with a root cause code — see references/root-cause-taxonomy.md.

5. Write the derail notes

Write the report to derail-notes/NN-dogfood-[topic].md in the project root.

Structure:

# Derailment Test: [skill-name] on "[task]"

Date: ...
Skill under test: ...
Test task: ...
Method: ...

---

## Friction points

### [Phase/step name]

**F-01 — [title]** (P0)
...

## What worked well

1. ...

## Priority summary

| Priority | Count | Friction points |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | N | F-xx, ... |
| P1 | N | F-xx, ... |
| P2 | N | F-xx, ... |

6. Apply fixes

Fix priority: all P0, then all P1, then P2 if time allows.

For each friction point, apply the fix directly to the skill's source files. Read references/fix-patterns.md to match the derailment type to a proven fix pattern.

Fixes must be:

  • In-place — edit the existing instruction, don't create errata
  • Self-contained — the fix works without consulting the derail notes
  • Minimal — add only what was missing

7. Verify fixes

After all edits:

  1. Terminology consistency — grep for stale terms that should have been updated
  2. Routing integrity — confirm every reference file is still reachable from SKILL.md
  3. Cross-reference consistency — no contradictions between documents
  4. Size constraints — SKILL.md still under 500 lines
  5. No regressions — fixes didn't introduce new ambiguities
# Example verification commands
grep -r "old_term" skills/[skill-name]/    # should be zero
find skills/[skill-name]/references -type f -name "*.md" | while read f; do
  grep -q "$(basename "$f" .md)" skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md || echo "ORPHAN: $f"
done
wc -l skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md        # should be under 500

8. Optional: Re-run the test

The gold standard is re-running the test on the fixed skill with a different task. New derailments go into a new derail-notes file (02-dogfood-[topic].md). Compare metrics across runs to verify improvement.

Decision rules

  • If the skill has no references, test only SKILL.md steps
  • If a derailment is actually a bug in an external tool (not the instructions), document it but tag it as external — don't fix the skill for someone else's bug
  • If 3+ P1 items cluster in one step, treat the cluster as compound P0
  • If the skill references other skills, test only the current skill's instructions — not the referenced skill's workflow
  • If you discover the skill's trigger boundary is wrong (fires on wrong queries), record it as a friction point but also flag it separately as a trigger issue

Do this, not that

Do thisNot that
Follow each step literally as writtenFill in gaps from personal knowledge
Record every uncertainty as a friction pointSkip ambiguities that seem "minor"
Fix the source files directlyCreate a separate errata or known-issues file
Test on a real task within the skill's scopeUse a toy example or hypothetical scenario
Write structured derail notes with IDs and severitiesWrite prose complaints without classification
Verify fixes with grep and routing checksAssume fixes are correct without verification
Report what worked well alongside what brokeWrite a purely negative report

Output contract

Deliver in this order:

  1. Test metadata (skill, task, date)
  2. Pre-scan summary (step count, branching, dependencies)
  3. Friction point registry (F-01 through F-NN with severity and root cause)
  4. Derailment density map
  5. What worked well section
  6. Priority summary table
  7. Fixes applied (which file, which friction point)
  8. Verification results

Reference routing

FileRead when
references/friction-classification.mdAssigning severity (P0/P1/P2) to a friction point or choosing between severity levels
references/root-cause-taxonomy.mdTagging friction points with root cause codes for pattern analysis
references/fix-patterns.mdMatching a derailment type to a proven fix pattern
references/metrics-and-iteration.mdTracking improvement across multiple test runs or building cross-run reports
references/adaptation-domains.mdApplying Derailment Testing to non-skill instruction sets (runbooks, SOPs, API docs)

Guardrails

  • Do not skip the pre-scan. It prevents misidentifying "working as designed" as a derailment.
  • Do not fix friction points without reading the root cause taxonomy. Fixes without root cause analysis recur.
  • Do not create an errata file. Fixes go directly into the source.
  • Do not declare the test complete without the "What worked well" section.
  • Do not re-test with the same task. Use a different representative task for each run.
  • Do not test a skill you are currently building. Build it first (with build-skills), then test it.

Final checks

Before declaring the test complete:

  • Derail notes file exists at derail-notes/NN-dogfood-[topic].md
  • Every friction point has an ID (F-NN), severity (P0-P2), and root cause code
  • All P0 fixes are applied
  • All P1 fixes are applied (or deferred with justification)
  • "What worked well" section is present
  • Priority summary table is present
  • Verification grep shows zero stale terms
  • Routing integrity confirmed — no orphaned reference files in tested skill
  • SKILL.md of tested skill is still under 500 lines after fixes

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

32.62%
按下载量换算21

Claude

28.63%
按下载量换算18

Cursor

19.54%
按下载量换算12

Gemini CLI

9.46%
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

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

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