aibot88
aibot88/sec_skill_store
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/aibot88/sec_skill_store --skill test-review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Guides the creation of agile user stories and Gherkin feature files. Use when the user wants to create a user story, write acceptance criteria, define Gherkin scenarios, or author BDD feature files. This should trigger for requests such as Create a user story; Write a user story; I need to write a user story. Part of cursor-rules-java project
Guía técnica completa para integrar 250+ servicios externos con agentes IA usando Composio. Cubre instalación, autenticación OAuth, gestión de herramientas, triggers y flujos multi-servicio.
Facilitates conversational discovery to create Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) for non-functional requirements using the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 quality model. Use when the user wants to document quality attributes, NFR decisions, security/performance/scalability architecture, or design systems with measurable quality criteria. This should trigger for requests such as Create ADR for Non-functional requirements; Document Non-functional requirements; Capture Non-functional requirements; Generate Non-functional requirements in an ADR. Part of cursor-rules-java project
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | test-review |
| description | Evaluate test suites for coverage gaps and TDD/BDD compliance. |
| alwaysApply | false |
| category | testing |
| tags | ["testing","tdd","bdd","coverage","quality","fixtures"] |
| tools | [] |
| usage_patterns | ["test-audit","coverage-analysis","quality-improvement","gap-remediation"] |
| complexity | intermediate |
| model_hint | standard |
| estimated_tokens | 200 |
| progressive_loading | true |
| dependencies | ["pensive:shared","imbue:proof-of-work"] |
| modules | ["modules/framework-detection.md","modules/coverage-analysis.md","modules/scenario-quality.md","modules/remediation-planning.md","modules/content-assertion-quality.md"] |
test-review:languages-detected)test-review:coverage-inventoried)test-review:scenario-quality)test-review:gap-remediation)test-review:evidence-logged)Evaluate and improve test suites with TDD/BDD rigor.
/test-review
Verification: Run pytest -v to verify tests pass.
test-review:languages-detectedtest-review:coverage-inventoriedtest-review:scenario-qualitytest-review:invariant-preservationtest-review:gap-remediationtest-review:evidence-loggedLoad modules as needed based on review depth:
modules/framework-detection.mdmodules/coverage-analysis.mdmodules/scenario-quality.mdmodules/remediation-planning.mdtest-review:languages-detected)Identify testing frameworks and version constraints.
→ See: modules/framework-detection.md
Quick check:
find . -maxdepth 2 -name "Cargo.toml" -o -name "pyproject.toml" -o -name "package.json" -o -name "go.mod"
Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.
test-review:coverage-inventoried)Run coverage tools and identify gaps.
→ See: modules/coverage-analysis.md
Quick check:
git diff --name-only | rg 'tests|spec|feature'
Verification: Run pytest -v to verify tests pass.
test-review:scenario-quality)Evaluate test quality using BDD patterns and assertion checks.
→ See: modules/scenario-quality.md
Focus on:
test-review:gap-remediation)Create concrete improvement plan with owners and dates.
→ See: modules/remediation-planning.md
test-review:evidence-logged)Record executed commands, outputs, and recommendations.
→ See: imbue:proof-of-work
Tests do not just verify behavior — they encode design invariants. A test that asserts "module A never imports from module B" encodes a layer boundary. A test that asserts "this function is pure" encodes a concurrency model. These tests are load-bearing in ways that coverage metrics cannot capture.
During review, check:
Were invariant-encoding tests removed or weakened? A test that enforced an architectural boundary, data structure constraint, or API contract should not be deleted without naming the invariant being abandoned and escalating to human judgment.
Were test expectations changed to match a broken implementation? If an assertion value changed, ask: did the requirement change, or did the agent change the test to make its code pass? The latter is the single most dangerous form of test tampering.
Are new invariants encoded as tests? When a design decision is made (choice of data structure, module boundary, error strategy), there should be at least one test whose failure would signal that the invariant was violated.
Red flag patterns:
| Pattern | Risk |
|---|---|
@pytest.mark.skip added to a passing test | Invariant being silently dropped |
| Assertion changed from specific to broad | Constraint being relaxed |
| Test renamed to describe new behavior | Old invariant erased from history |
| Test deleted "because it tested old code" | Invariant removed without replacement |
When invariant erosion is detected:
Do NOT approve. Flag as a BLOCKING quality issue and present the three options to the human:
This is a judgment call that models get wrong far too often. Default to option 1 (preserve) when no human is available.
## Summary
[Brief assessment]
## Framework Detection
- Languages: [list] | Frameworks: [list] | Versions: [constraints]
## Coverage Analysis
- Overall: X% | Critical: X% | Gaps: [list]
## Quality Issues
[Q1] [Issue] - Location - Fix
## Remediation Plan
1. [Action] - Owner - Date
## Recommendation
Approve / Approve with actions / Block
Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.
imbue:proof-of-work for reproducible evidence captureimbue:diff-analysis for risk assessmentimbue:structured-output patternsTests not discovered
Ensure test files match pattern test_*.py or *_test.py. Run pytest --collect-only to verify.
Import errors
Check that the module being tested is in PYTHONPATH or install with pip install -e .
Async tests failing
Install pytest-asyncio and decorate test functions with @pytest.mark.asyncio