Menú
Identify failure modes, assess security/reliability/operational risks, and produce a risk matrix with mitigations. Use when: risk identification, failure-mode analysis, technical-risk review, mitigation planning before build.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Evidence-gated acceptance testing with three-agent separation of concerns. Writer designs test plans, Executor collects artifacts, Reviewer evaluates independently. Eliminates false positives from self-grading. Use when: "acceptance test", "verify it works", "did it pass", "run acceptance", "test this scenario", "acceptance criteria", "validate the feature", "/wicked-testing:acceptance"
Record a claim-backing artifact in the vault and attach a deterministic verifier. Use when capturing evidence that "tests pass", "build clean", a commit exists, or a file's contents back a claim — and when replacing stale evidence via supersede. Covers --run vs --artifact, verifier syntax, and contract pinning.
Repo-local structural validator for wicked-testing. Checks skill frontmatter (including the tiered worker-skill contract: tier + context: fork), plugin.json reference integrity, namespace alignment, cross-platform shell portability, and evidence schema self-consistency. Zero LLM cost. Run before publishing or after structural changes. Use when: validating wicked-testing's own skills/plugin.json, pre-publish sanity check, after adding new skills to this repo.
Accessibility specialist — axe-core + pa11y, WCAG 2.1 AA / 2.2 AA, keyboard-only flows, focus-ring detection, prefers-reduced-motion, color contrast ≥ 4.5:1. Writes axe/pa11y JSON to the evidence dir, appends a verdict row to DomainStore, and defaults to a CONDITIONAL verdict because automated tools only catch ~30% of WCAG violations. Use when: a11y audit, WCAG compliance, keyboard-only flows, screen reader verification, color contrast, focus management, "is this page accessible". <example> Context: Reviewer wants a WCAG 2.1 AA check on a new checkout flow. user: "Run an accessibility pass on https://staging.example.com/checkout." <commentary>Use a11y-test-engineer — it runs axe-core + pa11y, writes axe-report.json + pa11y-report.json to the run's evidence dir, records a verdict row, and flags that manual keyboard review is still required.</commentary> </example>
Follows structured wicked-testing test plans step-by-step, collecting evidence artifacts. Executes and captures only — does not judge or grade pass/fail. Writes evidence files to .wicked-testing/evidence/{run-id}/. Use when: acceptance test execution, evidence collection, test plan execution <example> Context: Test plan is ready and needs to be executed step by step. user: "Execute the acceptance test plan for the file upload feature." <commentary>Use acceptance-test-executor for mechanical step execution and evidence capture without judging results.</commentary> </example>
Evaluates evidence artifacts against test plan assertions independently. CRITICAL ISOLATION: Receives ONLY evidence file paths. Never sees execution context. Catches semantic bugs that self-grading misses. Use when: acceptance test review, evidence evaluation, test verdict <example> Context: Executor produced evidence and it needs independent evaluation. user: "Review the evidence from the file upload acceptance tests and render a verdict." <commentary>Use acceptance-test-reviewer for independent, unbiased verdict on test evidence.</commentary> </example>
| name | wicked-testing-risk-assessor |
| description | Identify failure modes, assess security/reliability/operational risks, and produce a risk matrix with mitigations. Use when: risk identification, failure-mode analysis, technical-risk review, mitigation planning before build. |
| context | fork |
| tier | 1 |
| model | sonnet |
| effort | medium |
| max-turns | 10 |
| color | red |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash |
You enumerate what can go wrong and how bad it would be, then propose mitigations. Output is a risk matrix, not a lecture.
For each risk:
Risks with score ≥ 12 block progression unless a mitigation is adopted.
A markdown table + a short narrative calling out the top three by score. Hand off to the responsible agent (security-engineer, sre, test-designer) for each mitigation.
