菜单
Evaluate whether a test suite actually tests what it aims to, using an adversarial pass plus a tests-hidden cold read, then verify every finding against the code. Use when a suite is green but you doubt it would catch a real regression.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
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/laurigates/claude-plugins --skill test-strategy-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。
Install, configure and troubleshoot MCP servers. Use when adding/enabling servers, editing .mcp.json, fixing OAuth, or when a server runs stale code after an upstream fix.
FinOps snapshot — org billing, workflow stats, cache usage. Use when you want a high-level view of CI spending or workflow health before diving deeper.
GitHub Actions billing, workflow efficiency, and waste analysis at org or repo level. Use when investigating CI/CD costs, wasted runs, or optimizing triggers.
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| created | "2026-07-12T00:00:00.000Z" |
| modified | "2026-07-12T00:00:00.000Z" |
| reviewed | "2026-07-12T00:00:00.000Z" |
| allowed-tools | Task, Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git log *), Bash(git diff *), Bash(rg *), TodoWrite |
| args | [path|crate] [--models <a,b>] |
| argument-hint | [path or crate to review] [--models glm-5.2,gemini-2.5-pro] |
| description | Evaluate whether a test suite actually tests what it aims to, using an adversarial pass plus a tests-hidden cold read, then verify every finding against the code. Use when a suite is green but you doubt it would catch a real regression. |
| name | test-strategy-review |
A green suite is not evidence that the tests test what you're aiming for. It is evidence that the tests you wrote pass. The gap between those two is where the expensive bugs live — and it is invisible from inside the suite, because the suite's author and the suite share the same blind spots.
This skill attacks that gap from two directions at once, then makes both directions earn their findings:
| Pass | What it sees | What it asks |
|---|---|---|
| Adversarial | source + tests | "Where does a plausible mutant survive green?" |
| Cold read | source only — tests hidden | "What coverage would you demand here?" |
| Verify | the actual code | "Is each finding real, or did the model invent it?" |
The cold read is the move with no other home, and the reason this skill exists. Everything else composes skills you already have.
| Use this skill when... | Use something else instead when... |
|---|---|
| A suite is green but you doubt it would catch a real regression | You need to write tests → testing-plugin:test-setup / language test skills |
| Stakes are high: ML numerics, serialization, concurrency, config→behavior wiring | You want a mutation tool run → testing-plugin:mutation-testing |
| Before trusting a suite as the gate for a risky migration | You want test-smell/flake heuristics → testing-plugin:test-quality-analysis |
| A suite grew organically and nobody has audited what it doesn't cover | Adversarially reviewing code/a design (not a suite) → agent-patterns-plugin:adversarial-review |
| The suite is small, low-stakes, or throwaway — this manufactures busywork |
Reuse the posture from agent-patterns-plugin:adversarial-review (inverted
objective + triage gate); this skill only supplies the test-suite lens. Give
the reviewer source tests, and make it hunt concretely:
f(x) == f(x), a hash pinned to what the hash currently returns)
proves determinism, never correctness. Demand an independent truth.? propagation, the render/front-end seam,
config-precedence edges, I/O paths that every test disables via a large
cadence value (checkpoint_every: 10_000 over 10 steps never fires).Require, per finding: file:function → the surviving bug → severity → the
specific test that would kill it.
This is the novel pass. Give a reviewer the source and nothing else — no tests, and an explicit instruction not to guess at them — and ask it to design the suite it would demand before trusting this code. Then diff its list against what actually exists. The delta is your hole list, produced by someone who could not be anchored by the tests you already wrote.
file:function), the failure mode if it silently
broke, a badness×likelihood rank, and what independent truth the assertion
compares against.agent-patterns-plugin:cold-read-gate, which cold-reads
outward prose for legibility. Same instinct (a reader with no context sees
what you can't), different object: here the cold reader reads code and
emits required coverage.A large fraction of what comes back will already be covered — that is the point. It tells you the suite is strong there, and the residue is what it is blind to.
Adversarial reviewers invent findings. A model told to find faults will produce confident, specific, wrong ones. Never open an issue or write a test off a raw finding.
Worked example (the pass that pays for the skill). A reviewer flagged a "missed-wakeup hang" in an SSE subscriber: "
tokio::watchis level-triggered and the notified()value never changes, so the wake is lost." Reading tokio's source refuted it in two greps:send_replacebumps a monotonic version (the unchanging()is irrelevant), andchanged()registers-then-checks (no lost-wake window). The bug was not real. But the suite had no burst test, so the outcome was still a regression guard — and not a day spent "fixing" a non-bug.
Run the passes across genuinely different models (e.g. via
pal/clink to external providers), not N copies of the session model.
Same-model reviewers share blind spots — that is exactly what you are trying to
escape. Two models × two passes (adversarial, cold read) is a good default; give
each pass to both models and take the union, then verify.
Expect model output to be lossy about its own certainty: one model's "high severity race condition" was a false positive; another's throwaway note about an optimizer's default was a real, shipping bug.
Run against a Rust ML trainer with an unusually good suite (PyTorch-golden numerics, stage-by-stage parity, byte-pinned wire schema), it still surfaced:
weight_decay,
dropout) were declared, deserialized, and silently ignored. Every test
set them to their default (0.0), which makes the correct and the broken
wiring behave identically. This is the archetype: a default value that
hides the bug from every test that uses it.A single ranked table, most-dangerous-first, with CONFIRMED and PLAUSIBLE kept apart:
| # | Hole | Surviving mutant | Sev | Killing test |
|---|
Then a prioritized plan: real bugs first (they ship), then unverified-but-scary, then the holes — each as its own tracked issue so the batch doesn't rot.
agent-patterns-plugin:adversarial-review — the adversarial posture + triage
gate this skill's pass 1 borrows. Use it directly for code/designs/plans.agent-patterns-plugin:cold-read-gate — cold reading outward prose for
legibility (a sibling instinct, a different object).testing-plugin:mutation-testing — when you want a mutation tool to prove
the survivor mechanically, rather than a reviewer to reason about it.testing-plugin:test-quality-analysis — smells, overmocking, flake heuristics.testing-plugin:test-consult — strategy questions ("how should I test X?").