property-based-testing
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
属性测试与模糊测试(Fuzzing)。当需要写 Hypothesis/fast-check/proptest/jqwik 测试、Solidity invariants、模糊测试、边界值探索、随机输入生成、测试覆盖率提升、发现 edge case、合约安全测试、自动化测试策略时使用。
18 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- selamy-labs/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lecluse-net/galarisedited, first seen Oct 30, 2026
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- allanninal/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- alialavia/pbt-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 16, 2026
- scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use observability, security-review and 1 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.
OpenAISkillobservability
Vercel Observability expert guidance — Drains (logs, traces, speed insights, web analytics), Web Analytics, Speed Insights, runtime logs, custom events, OpenTelemetry integration, and monitoring dashboards. Use when instrumenting, debugging, or optimizing application performance and user experience on Vercel.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillsecurity-review
Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.
Also in 3 projects that use this
NVIDIASkillresearch
Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions18 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- mike22890/opencode-skills-cn★ 1100% same
Edited · 3
- rmusser01/tldw-stuff★ 279% same
- lecluse-net/galaris★ 159% same
- Open-Dot-Agents/Open-Dot-Agents★ 079% same
Wrote their own version · 14
- an8079/take-skills★ 4same name
- igmarin/elixir-phoenix-skills★ 4same name
- kimtth/agent-skill-100-lines-or-less★ 2same name
- alialavia/pbt-skills★ 1same name
- allanninal/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- mejbaurbahar/software-tester-skills★ 1same name
- mmondora/claude-skills★ 1same name
- scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skills★ 1same name
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 0same name
- J03Fr0st/skills★ 0same name
4 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 repository40 other files it gives its agents.
- aestheticsSkill
- applying-ui-design-systemSkill
- avoid-ai-writingSkill
- clonedepsSkill
- codemapSkill
- code-masterySkill
- code-refactor-astSkill
- copywritingSkill
- croSkill
- db-schema-designerSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- github-workflowSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- humanize-fictionSkill
- human-voiceSkill
- life-planningSkill
- literary-craftSkill
- long-taskSkill
- marketing-psychologySkill
- masterpiece-writingSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- mermaid-diagram-generatorSkill
- orchestrating-adversarial-reviewsSkill
- pandocSkill
- persuasion-craftSkill
- pptxSkill
- pricingSkill
- privacy-guardSkill
- product-strategySkill
- psychology-masterySkill
- research-masterySkill
- self-editSkill
- shopping-advisorSkill
- simplifySkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- story-endingsSkill
- system-designSkill
- thinking-craftSkill
- wealth-masterySkill
- wisdom-philosophySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 19
Check first whether the shape is missing or merely buried.
- Distinctive: line 71
If the project already uses a PBT library, just write the tests in it.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 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
Property-Based Testing
何时触发
关键词命中即触发:属性测试/模糊测试/Hypothesis/fast-check/随机/边界/不变量/Fuzzing。
An example test asserts one point. A property asserts a rule over the whole input domain and lets the generator hunt for the counterexample. That trade is worth making when the code has an algebraic shape — an inverse, an invariant, an oracle — and not otherwise. Code with no such shape gets example tests; saying so is a valid outcome.
Check first whether the shape is missing or merely buried. A calculation wrapped in I/O, a string built by concatenation, an in-place mutation — each has a property and no seam to assert it through. See references/refactoring.md before concluding there is nothing to assert.
Property catalog
| Property | Formula | Where it applies |
| Roundtrip | decode(encode(x)) == x | Serialization, conversion pairs |
| Inverse | f(g(x)) == x | encrypt/decrypt, compress/decompress |
| Oracle | new(x) == reference(x) | Optimization, refactoring, reimplementation |
| Idempotence | f(f(x)) == f(x) | Normalization, formatting, sorting |
| Invariant | Holds before and after | Any transformation, contract state |
| Easy to verify | is_sorted(sort(x)) | Complex algorithms with cheap checkers |
| Commutativity | f(a, b) == f(b, a) | Binary and set operations |
| Associativity | f(f(a,b), c) == f(a, f(b,c)) | Combining operations |
| Identity | f(x, e) == x | Operations with a neutral element |
Strength ordering, weakest to strongest:
no crash → type preservation → invariant → idempotence → roundtrip / oracle.
Assert the strongest property the code supports. "No crash" alone rarely justifies the dependency — if that is all you can find, either a small rearrangement exposes something stronger, or the honest report is that this code is a poor PBT candidate. Rule out the first before settling for the second.
The two ways a property test asserts nothing
- Tautology.
assert add(a, b) == a + brestates the implementation; no bug they share can fail it. Pick a property that constrains the function without recomputing it. Note the exception:f(x) == f(x)is a genuine determinism property whenfis not obviously pure — serializers over dicts or sets, hashing, anything reading the clock. - Vacuity.
assume()that filters out nearly every input passes without exercising anything, and self-contradictoryassume()passes having run zero cases. Push constraints into the strategy so the generator produces valid inputs directly.
Where to look next
Load the one that matches the task in front of you:
| Task | File |
| Writing new tests, designing strategies | references/generating.md |
| The code has no property to assert yet | references/refactoring.md |
| Reviewing existing property tests | references/reviewing.md |
| A property test just failed | references/interpreting-failures.md |
| Library choice, Echidna and Medusa | references/libraries.md |
Introducing PBT to a project that lacks it
If the project already uses a PBT library, just write the tests in it. If it does not, adding one is a dependency decision that belongs to the user — offer it once with the specific property you would write, and take the answer either way.
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.

