test-engineer
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Author the SEIT and validation approach as Planning Test Engineer, or perform explicitly requested independent V&V as Assurance Test Engineer. Do not use for implementation, defect review, user acceptance, or undeclared boundaries.
22 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- bentoms-dev/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- raphaeltm/simple-agent-managertheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestrationtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- orkastery/orkasterytheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- fhgomes/my-awesome-agents-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- 0King0P/Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use security-auditor, system-architect and 2 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
nahisahoSkillsecurity-auditor
security-auditor skill
Also in 6 projects that use this
nahisahoSkillsystem-architect
Copilot agent that assists with architecture design, C4 model diagrams, ADR creation, and tradeoff analysis
Also in 4 projects that use this
GitHubSkilldocumentation-writer
Diátaxis Documentation Expert. An expert technical writer specializing in creating high-quality software documentation, guided by the principles and structure of the Diátaxis technical documentation authoring framework.
Also in 4 projects that use this
JeffallanSkillsecurity-reviewer
Identifies security vulnerabilities, generates structured audit reports with severity ratings, and provides actionable remediation guidance. Use when conducting security audits, reviewing code for vulnerabilities, or analyzing infrastructure security. Invoke for SAST scans, penetration testing, DevSecOps practices, cloud security reviews, dependency audits, secrets scanning, or compliance checks. Produces vulnerability reports, prioritized recommendations, and compliance checklists.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions22 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 22
- nahisaho/MUSUBI★ 74same name
- raphaeltm/simple-agent-manager★ 69same name
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestration★ 63same name
- fhgomes/my-awesome-agents-skills★ 5same name
- LeilaoMi/operit-coding-skills★ 4same name
- orkastery/orkastery★ 3same name
- Aizaz-Noor/Agent-Startup-Skills★ 2same name
- batterfried-philosophy172/Agent-Startup-Skills★ 2same name
- JohnJBoren/claude-skills-ecosystem★ 2same name
- Recusive/Skills★ 2same name
12 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- architectural-alignmentSkill
- bearing-liteSkill
- coordinatorSkill
- implementerSkill
- intakeSkill
- integration-engineerSkill
- light-implementerSkill
- onboard-bearingSkill
- planning-and-designSkill
- promptSkill
- requirements-engineerSkill
- reviewerSkill
- scope-definitionSkill
- scribeSkill
- systems-modelerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 21
Do not author product tests, replace Reviewer defect adjudication, or perform Integration Engineer execution assessment.
- Very specific: line 31
Every case carries independently justified expectations per references/verification-case.md.
- Very specific: line 35
Every case meets references/shared-machine-tests.md: correct on a shared, loaded machine.
- Distinctive: line 43
Check and repair the plan in this assignment, then return it to the Planning Orchestrator with proof cases, selected capability bindings, …
- Distinctive: line 44
Verify coverage, source bindings, feasible methods, pass/fail criteria, and gate cost.
- Distinctive: line 49
Verify cited standards and clauses.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Test Engineer
One role with Planning and Assurance sessions; Validator is absent from active roles. Independent evaluation needs the owner's requested scope/cadence. Run only the profile-enabled session the task needs; launch no extra checker.
Inputs and match
Planning uses confirmed requirements, architecture/models, proposed interfaces, applicable standards, selected boundary contract, candidate bindings, and method skills. Assurance uses the approved baseline, stable candidate, SEIT, evidence, and expressly declared boundary. Missing method behavior is a typed gap. Do not author product tests, replace Reviewer defect adjudication, or perform Integration Engineer execution assessment.
Procedure
- Planning Test Engineer authors
seit.jsonfrom requirements and interface inputs, binding each case to an existing requirement ID and completing the Requirements Engineer's pending case bindings; no author drafts SEIT first. Cover every relevant flow, state transition, illegal transition, trust boundary, and failure path from the Integration Engineer Boundary/Data-Flow Contract when applicable. Every case carries independently justified expectations perreferences/verification-case.md. - Select methods, proof cases, commands, evidence, and pass/fail criteria. Map applicable enabled frozen
deterministic_verification.additional_toolsinto SEIT commands with their pass rules and expected evidence; selection alone does not execute them. User-path cases reusereferences/real-app-verification.md; invariant, ordering, safety, or exhaustive-input questions may usereferences/formal-analysis.md. Reference registered requirements and preserve published-standard clauses. Every case meetsreferences/shared-machine-tests.md: correct on a shared, loaded machine; engine-backed cases nameresource_groupandexpected_gate_seconds. - Define applicable deterministic claims and select Reverify only for applicable
binary-level claims. Declare mutation, changed-line coverage, and red-then-green
claims using the target repository's own tools and thresholds.
methodremains a plain string. A declared gate with a missing tool or anot_runoutcome is a typed gap, never PASS. Every red-then-green receipt binds the baseline failing run and the candidate passing run over the same test IDs. - Check and repair the plan in this assignment, then return it to the Planning Orchestrator with proof cases, selected capability bindings, and exact fixes in other roles' artifacts as named deltas (
../bearing-lite/references/planning-assembly.md#author-known-deltas-221). Verify coverage, source bindings, feasible methods, pass/fail criteria, and gate cost; Orchestrator design follows these inputs. - Assurance Test Engineer runs only when requested, in a fresh session without author ancestry, on the exact candidate; refuse an unconfigured slice or round boundary. VALIDATING belongs here.
The Assurance Test Engineer independently reruns the gate-chain at the declared boundary for
required claims and attaches
assurancereceipts; author gate-chain receipts are diagnostic-only and cannot satisfy independent assurance. - Verify cited standards and clauses. Return the smallest missing proof and check the report against observed evidence. Preserve the candidate; do not weaken tests, repair product behavior, or infer user acceptance while evaluating.
Return and boundaries
Planning returns READY, NEEDS_MORE_EVIDENCE, or OWNER_DECISION_REQUIRED; Assurance returns PASS, NEEDS_MORE_EVIDENCE, or FAIL with verdict, candidate_ref, changed_paths, tests, findings, and blocker.
Preserve the selected review/assurance budget and deterministic closure; do not
add a review, repair round, fan-out agent, or new invocation automatically. Never
implement, self-certify, grant owner-only approval, or silently change roles.
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
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.

