chaos-engineering
Skill37 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Adversary of /do-task — read the implemented change, map the attack surface, write adversarial unit/E2E tests that try to break it (boundaries, nulls, broken money, hostile dependencies, concurrency, malicious payloads, unexpected state), run them locally, classify each KILLED/SURVIVED/INCONCLUSIVE, promote the useful ones to permanent regressions, and deliver a Chaos Report. Never touches production code, never hits remote environments. Use when the user asks to chaos-test, stress, or adversarially test a change.
13 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- darkweb19/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jason0971/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Cure-Consulting-Group/ProductEngineeringSkillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- petrkindlmann/qa-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- jars-demo/jars-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collectiontheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 13
- petrkindlmann/qa-skills★ 209same name
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection★ 33same name
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18same name
- an8079/take-skills★ 4same name
- Cure-Consulting-Group/ProductEngineeringSkills★ 3same name
- csiddhant796-blip/claude-skills-collection★ 2same name
- ffsshhttiikk/opencode-agents-skills★ 2same name
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 2same name
- jason0971/skills★ 1same name
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
3 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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- create-productSkill
- create-tasksSkill
- do-taskSkill
- groundworkSkill
- make-guidelinesSkill
- watch-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 13 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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 40
Write adversarial tests following the project's test conventions (guidelines, nearest first).
- Distinctive: line 49
Run the arsenal (resolved test commands).
- Very specific: line 57
Before sealing each finding, apply the defense-lawyer test: is there a reading where this behavior is intentional (a guideline, a card …
- Very specific: line 80
Chaos is local: Never a request against staging/prod/partner APIs — hostility is simulated, without exception (guardrails).
- Distinctive: line 83
Theatrical chaos is forbidden: no testing impossible-by-construction scenarios to pad the report.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 13 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
Skill: chaos-engineering
Where /do-task builds, this tries to break. It takes a just-implemented change and writes tests whose only goal is to prove it fails. Respond to the invoking user in the conversation language (docs/agents/language.md; unset → their language); team-visible surfaces follow language: in docs/agents/tracker.md.
Philosophy: an attack that SURVIVED is also a result. The goal isn't to find bugs at any cost — it's to map where the code holds and where it cedes, and leave the tests that matter as regression inheritance.
Load before acting: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/workflow-context.md, ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/card-format.md, ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/pr-flow.md, ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/autonomy.md, and ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/guardrails.md — this skill writes and runs tests and posts to trackers; the loading contract applies in full.
Step 0 — Resolve the target
Attack the first that exists (card-format § Chaos target): a PR diff → a local diff vs the base branch → the files named in a card's Implementation plan (working tree — the fallback both for no-git repos and when tier 2 yields an empty diff because the change already landed on base). Base branch = base_branch in docs/agents/tracker.md; the remote-dependent detection fallbacks fail without a remote — assume main and say so. Argument may be a PR (#N/URL), a card (TASK-007/path/id), or empty (use the current branch's diff vs base). There is always a target; "no PR" never blocks a run.
Resolve roles for reading the target and placing the report (workflow-context). Read the card if one is linked — its acceptance criteria are promises, and every promise is attackable by negation.
Baseline gate: the target's existing tests must pass before the chaos run — the resolved validation suite (the same commands do-task uses); in large repos, scope to the suites covering the touched files and say so in the report. A red baseline → stop: you can't tell a real finding from a broken environment (park with the failing baseline).
Step 1 — Map the attack surface
From the diff (not the whole repo — only what changed is in scope): the production files touched, the contracts involved (schemas, DTOs, external API shapes, queue/job payloads), and the card's acceptance criteria. What the author already tested you needn't repeat; what they forgot is where the chaos lives.
Step 2 — Attack plan (info, no question)
Cross the diff with the vector catalog; select the applicable vectors (not every vector fits every diff), prioritize by impact × probability.
Vector catalog: boundaries (zero, negative, MAX_SAFE_INTEGER, empty/one/N+1, leap day, timezone) · nulls & absence (optional omitted, null vs undefined, empty object, missing API field) · broken money (cent rounding, installment sums ≠ total, negative, discount > 100%, 0.1 + 0.2) · hostile dependencies (external API 500/429/timeout/truncated-JSON, cache down, DB deadlock, job dies mid-flight) · concurrency & idempotency (same request twice, duplicate webhook, reprocessed job, cron-vs-request race) · hostile payloads (emoji/encoding, 10k-char strings, injection strings, HTML in free text, number-as-string) · unexpected state (enum out of domain, orphaned FK, expired session, "impossible" status) · contract violation (external type flip, unknown enum, extra field, empty page 2).
Domain criticality anchors severity — read the project's ## Domain criticality guideline (make-guidelines theme 15). It defines what "critical" means here: money in fintech, patient data in health, etc. Without it, severity is opinion; with it, a finding against the sacred thing is critical by definition.
Show the plan (~15 lines): target, surface size, selected vectors as attack hypotheses, out-of-scope vectors with a one-line why. Escalation-only exceptions (park protocol): red baseline; diff > budget (offer to slice by area); plan > 15 attacks (propose the top 10).
Step 3 — Build the arsenal
Write adversarial tests following the project's test conventions (guidelines, nearest first). Naming: <target>.chaos.spec.ts (unit) / <target>.chaos.e2e-spec.ts (E2E) — the .spec/.e2e-spec suffixes keep them out of the PR production-line count and inside the runner's discovery.
- One
describeper vector, oneitper attack, named by the hypothesis, not the implementation. - Simulate hostility with mocks/fixtures (MSW/nock for HTTP, fakes for cache/queue) — the test describes the hostile world, never depends on a real one.
- Each attack asserts the correct behavior (what the system should do under chaos), not the bug. So a failing attack = a real finding, and the same test becomes a free regression after the fix.
- 100% synthetic data — never real user data (guardrails).
Step 4 — Run and classify
Run the arsenal (resolved test commands). Classify each attack per the fixed vocabulary (card-format § Chaos): 💀 KILLED · 🛡️ SURVIVED · ❓ INCONCLUSIVE — for ❓, the test itself is wrong (bad mock, flaky, env limit): fix and rerun; still inconclusive after 2 tries → record as such, never inflate the report.
For each 💀, produce the minimal repro — the smallest hostile input that still kills. Round cap: 3 rounds max (initial plan + 2 deepening rounds on what KILLED or nearly did). Infinite chaos is procrastination with extra steps. The 2-try INCONCLUSIVE cap and the 3-round cap are independent: an attack that stays ❓ after 2 fix-and-rerun attempts is recorded as inconclusive and dropped — never burn rounds chasing a verdict on a broken test.
Step 5 — Triage
Severity per the table (card-format vocabulary + the domain-criticality anchor): 🔴 critical (corrupts the sacred thing — money, patient data, whatever the guideline names), 🟠 high (crash in a main flow, card promise violated), 🟡 medium (edge case, mishandled error), ⚪ low (cosmetic, robustness).
Before sealing each finding, apply the defense-lawyer test: is there a reading where this behavior is intentional (a guideline, a card decision, an author comment)? If yes, downgrade to contestable and record the doubt — the report separates fact from interpretation.
Step 6 — Report and arsenal destination
Report (always, per card-format § Chaos report placement): the full report is a local file chaos-reports/<target>-<date>.md (gitignored — add the entry if missing; skip when no git). The summary (~10 lines) goes to the card/PR per the resolved mode (comment in Mode A/B, appended ## Chaos Report section in Mode C), with the AI-disclosure line; state marker chaos: passed (zero unfixed KILLED) or chaos: found-bugs.
Arsenal destination — only the curated arsenal ships:
"Open PR" = a PR that hasn't merged yet (attack pre-merge). "Merged" = the change is in the base branch's history — including a Mode C card that do-task took straight to done with no PR (there was never a PR, but the code has landed → treat as merged).
- 🛡️ SURVIVED covering a real gap (no existing test did) → promote as permanent regression (ships wherever the arsenal ships for this target).
- 💀 KILLED on an open PR (pre-merge) → the test ships unskipped and blocks the merge on purpose — the bug found before merge should block merge; the test is the fix's acceptance test.
- 💀 KILLED on already-landed code (merged, or Mode C card already
done) → commit withit.skip+// CHAOS:marker (can't break the base branch) and open a[FIX]follow-up card (never reopen the landed card — card-format § Chaos on merged cards). - 🛡️ redundant (already covered) or ❓ inconclusive → discard. The arsenal isn't accumulation.
Where to commit: invoker owns the PR → one commit test(chaos): <summary> on the PR branch (never per-push spam). Invoker ≠ owner → propose the tests via PR comment, don't push to someone else's branch. No PR (including no-remote Mode C) → one local test(chaos): <summary> commit carrying everything that ships — the skipped KILLED tests and the promoted SURVIVED regressions ride the same commit — plus the [FIX] follow-up cards for each KILLED finding.
Step 7 — Handoff
Status: <k> KILLED · <s> SURVIVED · <p> promoted · target <PR/card> · report <path> + arsenal destination + resolution trace + suggested next step (fix via /do-task on the [FIX] card, or merge clean). Then stop — never fix production code itself, never open a fix PR, never keep attacking without a new invocation.
Guardrails (this skill, on top of shared/guardrails.md)
- Chaos is local. Never a request against staging/prod/partner APIs — hostility is simulated, without exception (guardrails).
- Read-only on production code. This skill writes tests, mocks, fixtures — never
src/. Finding and fixing are separate roles by design; the one exception is the user asking for the fix in writing during this same chaos run, before the report is sealed (then fix per guidelines and rerun the attack to confirm the kill turned into a survive). - Never leave a red test ownerless: 💀 on an open PR blocks merge on purpose (that's the signal working);
it.skipis reserved for merged-code findings or an explicit human "merge anyway" with a linked card. A red CI with no report, no owner, no plan is sabotage — never that. - Theatrical chaos is forbidden: no testing impossible-by-construction scenarios to pad the report; no asserting the current buggy behavior; no declaring 💀 when what broke was the mock or the clock.
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.

