القائمة
Test Protocol
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Generate and curate Claude-oriented bash-policy project rules. Use to run bash-policy export/report, review .bash-policy-candidates.yaml from Claude settings, update .bash-policy.yaml, normalize command-shape identities, or validate bash-policy configuration.
Assess whether an input document is ready for a specific §BRAND_NAME_TITLE§ MAS entry point. Use when a user asks whether a goal, functional spec, detailed spec, technical spec, PRD, story bundle, architecture plan, or other source document is solid enough to run through §BRAND_BINARY_NAME§ with `--entry-point general-objective`, `functional-spec`, `detailed-spec`, or `technical-spec`; when deciding which entry point fits a document; or before `§BRAND_BINARY_NAME§ init --spec`.
Coordinate Pairing-mode doer/reviewer sessions through a Markdown blackboard. Use when the user invokes /adversarial-pairing with role and blackboard-path arguments or asks multiple pairing agents to coordinate plan review, implementation, staged code review, and follow-up review rounds without §BRAND_NAME_TITLE§ multi-agent mode.
Define component boundaries, interfaces, and structural decisions for a change
Summarize artifacts produced by §BRAND_BINARY_NAME§ agents for human checkpoint review
Pre-commit Clean Code refactoring
| name | testing |
| description | Test Protocol |
Tests are the immune system — they reject bugs, not document them.
| Code | Test | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Working | Green | Good |
| Buggy | Red | Good (bug exposed) |
| Working | Red | Wrong expectations |
| Buggy | Green | DANGEROUS |
| Unknown | Red | STOP — use Analysis Framework below |
ANTI-PATTERN: The most dangerous instinct is to "fix" failing tests by accepting whatever source currently does.
Ask for context:
Default heuristic: Tests encode intent; assume the test is correct until evidence suggests otherwise. Source drifts; tests usually don't drift without reason.
Analysis Framework:
FORBIDDEN without approval:
Allowed: Fresh repro tests capturing current failure (existing tests untouched).
Quality Standards:
pytest.raises(ValueError, match="...")Assertion Strength: Would this assertion pass for a broken implementation? If yes (tautology, type-only, existence-only, shape-only), strengthen it.
Mocking Discipline: Test the code, not the scaffolding. Heavy mock setup suggests you're testing assumptions about dependencies, not behavior. Mock external boundaries (APIs, DBs, filesystems), not internal logic.
Paired Coverage: For each positive test, consider a negative counterpart. Happy-path-only is a red flag for complex source.
Coverage Relevance: "Tests pass" ≠ "tests exercise changed code". For non-trivial changes, verify tests cover modified paths.
Signal Hierarchy: Integration failures > Unit failures for architectural changes. Green units with red integration = units work but don't compose.
Structure: Prefer GIVEN / WHEN / THEN blocks for readability. Omit a section when empty; the structure clarifies intent, not ceremony.
Template Principle: Identify one high-quality test file as reference. Match its patterns.
Flaky Tests: Flakiness is a bug, not noise. When encountered: isolate, report, do not retry-until-green. Flakiness masks real failures.