agentleFS
pinguypinguy/Skills/skills/openwebui-regression-test/SKILL.md

openwebui-regression-test

Skill0 starsChanged 56 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Regression-test Open WebUI tools, adapters, streaming, reconnects, provider limits, and TTS through the real browser path.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈13

    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:

    Use the real logged-in Open WebUI browser/app path for functional verification.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Use timestamps or request IDs to join evidence across layers.

    line 37
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer the smallest fix at the layer that owns the fault.

    line 41
  4. Distinctive:

    Run blocking synchronous tool work outside the event loop so Socket.IO heartbeats remain responsive.

    line 43
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep intermediate tool-loop prose in structured receipts, but expose and speak only the final assistant answer.

    line 47
  6. Distinctive:

    Avoid automatic Knowledge/RAG injection unless explicitly required.

    line 49
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not modify account data or replace the live database to solve a request-path bug.

    line 50
  8. Distinctive:

    After each material change:

    line 54
  9. Distinctive:

    Check service restart counts and HTTP statuses.

    line 63
  10. Distinctive:

    Remove only disposable test chats created by this test.

    line 64
  11. Distinctive:

    Run database integrity checks and confirm the user's chat count/state remain plausible.

    line 65
  12. Distinctive:

    Use the smallest matrix covering the changed behavior:

    line 69
  13. Distinctive:

    Never claim “verified” from static configuration or a direct backend call when the bug occurs in the browser path.

    line 95

≈ “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

Open WebUI Regression Test

Use the real logged-in Open WebUI browser/app path for functional verification. Treat configuration, service status, HTTP 200 responses, and database integrity as supporting evidence, not proof of user-visible success.

Establish the failure boundary

  1. Reproduce the user's exact model, prompt shape, enabled toggles, and tool path.
  2. Record whether the failure is:
    • provider/API error such as HTTP 429;
    • adapter or OpenClaw routing error;
    • Open WebUI backend exception;
    • Socket.IO heartbeat/reconnect warning;
    • duplicated visible answer;
    • missing or duplicated TTS;
    • tool-call refusal, truncation, or repeated tool turns.
  3. Correlate browser-visible timing with service logs. Do not label a reconnect banner a backend crash unless a process restart or failed request proves it.
  4. Preserve the existing database and unrelated user state.

Inspect the complete request chain

Check, in order:

  1. Browser DOM and console-visible behavior.
  2. Open WebUI request and Socket.IO lifecycle.
  3. Open WebUI middleware/tool execution.
  4. Local adapter request/stream translation.
  5. OpenClaw gateway routing.
  6. Upstream provider response and rate-limit headers.
  7. Stored assistant message structure, including legacy content, structured output, tool receipts, and error fields.
  8. TTS request and audio playback state when voice mode is involved.

Use timestamps or request IDs to join evidence across layers.

Apply narrow fixes

Prefer the smallest fix at the layer that owns the fault.

  • Run blocking synchronous tool work outside the event loop so Socket.IO heartbeats remain responsive.
  • For provider 429s, use bounded retries with server-directed or exponential backoff only when retrying is safe.
  • Disable incidental title, tag, follow-up, or metadata model calls when they create avoidable concurrency or rate pressure.
  • Batch independent retrieval calls in one parallel tool round when supported.
  • Keep intermediate tool-loop prose in structured receipts, but expose and speak only the final assistant answer.
  • Preserve tool calls, citations, and receipts; do not hide failures by discarding evidence.
  • Avoid automatic Knowledge/RAG injection unless explicitly required.
  • Do not modify account data or replace the live database to solve a request-path bug.

Validate through the real user path

After each material change:

  1. Restart only the services that require it.
  2. Open or reuse the actual logged-in Chrome/Open WebUI app profile.
  3. Submit a prompt that forces the affected behavior.
  4. Monitor the live DOM for reconnect banners, duplicated answer blocks, provider error cards, and completion.
  5. Confirm the expected tool calls occurred and inspect their stored receipts.
  6. Confirm the final stored message has no unexpected error and that visible content matches the final answer once.
  7. For voice mode, confirm a real TTS request returns valid audio and the app plays it unmuted.
  8. Check service restart counts and HTTP statuses.
  9. Remove only disposable test chats created by this test.
  10. Run database integrity checks and confirm the user's chat count/state remain plausible.

Test matrix

Use the smallest matrix covering the changed behavior:

  • One ordinary response without tools.
  • One forced single-tool response.
  • One multi-tool or multi-search response.
  • One streaming response from an OpenClaw-routed model.
  • One provider likely to exercise the affected adapter path, such as NIM.
  • Voice/TTS only when audio behavior changed.

For rate-limit fixes, test enough consecutive requests to exercise retry logic without deliberately hammering the provider.

Report receipts honestly

Report:

  • exact browser path tested;
  • model/provider;
  • number and type of tool calls;
  • reconnect banners observed;
  • duplicate visible answers observed;
  • upstream errors and retries;
  • final request status;
  • service restart evidence;
  • database integrity and retained chat state;
  • any untested boundary.

Never claim “verified” from static configuration or a direct backend call when the bug occurs in the browser path.

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.