agentleFS
sgaabdu4sgaabdu4/appwrite-backend/.agents/skills/e2e/SKILL.md

e2e

Skill2 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Prove real user journeys across browser, mobile, desktop, API and CLI surfaces using the project's existing test tools. Use for end-to-end verification, runtime UI review or requested visual proof.

50 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use instinct-export, instinct-import and 10 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.
  • TheKREATORSSkill

    instinct-export

    Export instincts from project/global scope to a file

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • TheKREATORSSkill

    instinct-import

    Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • diego-tobalinaSkill

    build-fix

    Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • 0mlkrizzz655335vSkill

    sdk

    Codex SDK 集成开发。用 TypeScript/Python SDK 做 agent 生命周期、流式输出、本地/云端执行等集成。

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MontimageSkill

    test-coverage

    Improve test coverage by finding untested branches, error paths, and edge cases. Use when measuring or strengthening a project's tests. Don't use for production debugging, code review, or feature implementation.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    worktree

    Create, reuse or clean up a dedicated git worktree for working on a pull request or a private branch. Use from any PR-scoped workflow that needs an isolated checkout to keep current code and build output untouched.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +1 more from TheKREATORS

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 43 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
  1. Distinctive:

    Keep cases isolated and repeatable using existing fixtures and cleanup.

    line 34
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep secrets and personal data out of artifacts.

    line 43

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 43 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

E2E

Routes

Select by actual surface + explicit browser/device requirements. Reuse the project's runner, fixtures and fakes; no fake for an outside service → build one per test design; missing runtime/connection → identify the needed capability before setup.

flowchart LR
  S{Surface} -->|Web UI| B[Existing browser E2E]
  B -->|Recorded proof needed| V[Product Walkthrough: recorded E2E]
  S -->|Polished web video requested| D[Product Walkthrough: video delivery]
  S -->|Flutter + Riverpod| F[building-flutter-apps skill]
  S -->|Other Flutter| I[Existing Flutter integration + device tools]
  F -->|Recorded proof needed| G[Recorded proof: references/flutter.md]
  I -->|Recorded proof needed| G
  S -->|Native / React Native / desktop| N[Platform + device runner]
  S -->|API / worker / CLI / pure Dart| A[Real request / event / command boundary]
  click V "../product-walkthrough-video/SKILL.md"
  click D "../product-walkthrough-video/SKILL.md"
  click G "references/flutter.md"

OS-owned dialogs → platform control beyond the app tree. Browser exploration → durable regressions in existing tests. API/CLI journeys need UI runtime only when the journey includes it.

Prove the journey

  • Establish requested behavior, environment/build, actors, permissions and starting data. A reused server or app must run this checkout's current build. Exercise the real user path with stable semantic selectors and observable state waits.
  • Choose the smallest cases covering the changed behavior and meaningful failures. Shared state needs independent writer/observer proof; persisted changes need source-of-truth readback. Cover denied/revoked access, retries or relaunch when the requirement depends on them.
  • Keep cases isolated and repeatable using existing fixtures and cleanup. Do not substitute a mock, direct API mutation or test-only shortcut for the interaction being proved.
  • Assert the visible result and relevant durable effects. A completed click, successful request, clean log or zero exit alone is insufficient. Investigate unexpected app/native/network errors and retries that only pass intermittently.
  • On failure, preserve the reproduction and useful evidence; distinguish product, fixture, runner and capture defects. With fix authorization, correct the owner, rerun the original case and affected downstream cases, and retain a meaningful regression in the existing suite. Completion requires the corrected journey + affected checks to pass; otherwise report the exact blocker and remaining proof. Retries or weaker assertions do not resolve a defect.
  • A user-reported defect reopens the affected journey's verification. Reproduce it, strengthen the assertion or review that missed it, and repeat the fix/retest loop; previous passing evidence cannot close the new report.

Visual proof and completion

  • Capture the smallest useful evidence set. Ordinary regression work does not require video. When screenshots or video are requested or needed, inspect the actual delivered media and confirm its subject, required steps and final state.
  • Recorded proof follows the selected route's owner; backend readback + repeatable journey assertions stay here and media checks alone cannot prove acceptance. Captures outside an owned pipeline → existing artifacts + direct inspection; do not invent a compatible report.
  • Keep secrets and personal data out of artifacts. Show requested evidence to the user; treat test artifacts as local unless their inclusion as repository assets is authorized.
  • Report tested surfaces, outcomes and exact gaps separately. Assertions, persisted state, deployment identity and visual evidence prove different things. An unavailable device, account, real-service run or unreviewed artifact remains unproven.

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.