agentleFS
aradmanamnaoonaradmanamnaoon/vibe-coding-skills/skills/testing/integration-reality-checker/SKILL.md

integration-reality-checker

Skill0 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub

Identify critical integrations proven only by mocks and design the smallest realistic contract or sandbox verification. Use for APIs, databases, queues, storage, auth providers, or external services.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read applicable repository instructions before edits.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep unit tests fast, adding realistic checks only for assumptions that mocks cannot establish.

    line 36
  3. Distinctive:

    Never use production credentials or mutate production data for a verification run without explicit authorization.

    line 47
  4. Distinctive:

    If real credentials/services are unavailable, stop at local contract fixtures and mark external verification pending.

    line 64

≈ “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

Purpose

Separate unit-level confidence from evidence that system boundaries actually interoperate.

When to activate

A feature crosses a process/service/database/provider boundary and tests mock that boundary.

When not to activate

A pure function/module has no external contract.

Preconditions

  • Read applicable repository instructions before edits.
  • Preserve unrelated working-tree changes and establish a baseline when the workflow can modify code.
  • Identify which tools and environments are actually available; do not claim unavailable checks ran.

Required inputs

  • Integration boundaries
  • Current mocks/fakes
  • Available local/sandbox services
  • Credentials policy

Workflow

  1. List each external boundary and the assumptions encoded by the application: protocol, schema, auth, errors, retries, timeouts, transactions.
  2. Mark which assumptions are covered only by mocks or hand-written fakes.
  3. Choose the lowest-cost realistic check: contract test, local fake server with captured schema, ephemeral container/database, or provider sandbox.
  4. Keep unit tests fast, adding realistic checks only for assumptions that mocks cannot establish.
  5. Exercise at least success, invalid input/auth where relevant, and one realistic failure/timeout path.
  6. Compare real responses/schema to mock fixtures and update mocks only after the contract is confirmed.
  7. Record integrations that remain credential- or network-blocked.

Relevant tools

Containers, local services, contract tests, provider sandbox/docs.

Safety restrictions

Never use production credentials or mutate production data for a verification run without explicit authorization.

Validation

  • At least one realistic boundary check covers each high-impact integration where the environment permits.
  • Mocks match observed/authoritative contract data.
  • Unexecuted integrations are clearly labeled.

Expected output

  • Integration evidence matrix
  • Mock/real discrepancies
  • Executed contract tests
  • Blocked integrations

Failure handling

If real credentials/services are unavailable, stop at local contract fixtures and mark external verification pending.

Completion criteria

The skill is complete only when every applicable validation item above has observed evidence or is explicitly marked not executed with the concrete blocker. Do not replace missing evidence with confidence language.

Research mapping

This skill was selected from research problems: P023, P027. See research/vibe-coding-problems.md and research/problem-evidence.csv in the Vibe Coding Skills repository.

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.