agentleFS
IamK77IamK77/Skill/skills/surface/trials/SKILL.md

trials

Skill2 starsChanged 31 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Build frontend regression tests that observe real user behaviour and survive implementation refactors. Use for interaction, integration, and critical journey coverage.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Test levels and substituted boundaries fit the actual risk.

    line 38
  2. Very specific:

    When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance behaviour --run "$RUN".

    line 41
  3. Distinctive:

    Write the test using real component/state integration where practical.

    line 45
  4. Distinctive:

    Remove assertions about irrelevant internals and stabilize clocks, data, and async waits.

    line 58
  5. Very specific:

    If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending.

    line 73
  6. Very specific:

    After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN".

    line 79

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md
<!-- Copyright 2026 IamK77 — Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See ./LICENSE and ./NOTICE · https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 -->

trials

Build frontend regression tests that observe real user behaviour and survive implementation refactors. Use for interaction, integration, and critical journey coverage.

Inputs

Journey or defect; observable acceptance examples; actual test stack; API contracts; relevant device/input modes.

Run record

Use checklist 0.5 or newer for this SOP. Reading or reloading the skill must not reset work. For a new task, run checklist init "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}" --new --path "/absolute/project"; retain its returned ID as RUN. For existing work, use checklist resume "$RUN", then checklist show --run "$RUN". Outside Claude, replace the skill-directory variable with this directory’s actual path.

Commands below record work after it is done. Replace evidence placeholders with concise artifact locations and observations. Manual confirmations are not independent proof; a sensor pass covers only the command and inputs it observed. verify does not close a stage; advance checks that its required readings are fulfilled. Use report --run "$RUN" for the retained history.

Procedure

behaviour

Choose a user-visible outcome and a test level that observes its failure. Keep critical cross-page paths thin; isolate pure logic only when that is where the risk lives.

Record these artifacts after doing the work:

  • Tests are tied to concrete visible outcomes and failure cases. checklist check behaviour examples --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
  • Test levels and substituted boundaries fit the actual risk. checklist check behaviour level --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"

When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance behaviour --run "$RUN".

exercise

Write the test using real component/state integration where practical. Validate doubles against the contract. Observe the intended red result, repair or restore the implementation, then run the suite.

Record these artifacts after doing the work:

  • The targeted fault made the test fail for the expected reason. checklist check exercise red --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
  • The restored implementation and relevant suite passed, with logs retained. checklist check exercise green --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"

When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance exercise --run "$RUN".

handoff

Remove assertions about irrelevant internals and stabilize clocks, data, and async waits. Retain the tests and report browser/device coverage and remaining gaps.

Record these artifacts after doing the work:

  • Tests retain meaningful assertions and deterministic setup. checklist check handoff maintainable --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
  • Execution environments and untested paths are explicit. checklist check handoff coverage --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"

When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance handoff --run "$RUN".

Branches

Visual comparisons and accessibility scans supplement behavioural tests; neither replaces a keyboard walkthrough or meaningful assertions. If the browser environment is unavailable, report unrun tests rather than substituting a green unit test.

If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending. A changed requirement may need a new run; an accepted checklist edit uses resume "$RUN" --refresh and requires fresh readings. To abandon work, use checklist reset --run "$RUN" --reason "<reason>"; history is retained.

Completion

Retained frontend regressions with demonstrated fault sensitivity and a clear execution record.

After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN". This archives the result without deleting its history; it does not authorise any external action.

Reference shelf

Open the technique relevant to the current step. These notes provide concrete methods and examples, not additional phases; this entrypoint defines the run's completion conditions.

  • Assert the experience the contract promises
  • Keep frontend doubles and fixtures honest
  • Use the cheapest level that observes the real failure
  • Choose tests around observable risk

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.