testing-verification
Skill68 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Design or assess tests, acceptance checks, CI coverage, and browser verification. Use when verification is the main deliverable or requires specialist judgment; ordinary implementation can keep its focused checks inline.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AL-JANEF/janef-forgetheir own version, first seen Sep 19, 2026
- AL-JANEF/janefskillstheir own version, first seen Sep 19, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- AL-JANEF/janef-forge★ 1same name
- AL-JANEF/janefskills★ 1same name
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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agents-md-generatorSkill
- brainstorm-firstSkill
- debugging-workflowSkill
- design-system-generatorSkill
- docker-local-devSkill
- documentation-guidelinesSkill
- laravel-11-12-app-guidelinesSkill
- laravel-13-app-guidelinesSkill
- office-web-ui-systemSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- project-development-mindsetSkill
- run-reviewable-subtask-loopSkill
- ui-ux-concept-implementationSkill
- vps-docker-traefik-deploySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Verify observable behavior at the narrowest reliable level, using project conventions and the failure cost to choose coverage.
- Distinctive: line 12
Run in the main conversation by default.
- Distinctive: line 18
Prefer existing test infrastructure and stable fixtures.
- Distinctive: line 28
Run focused checks and required repository gates.
- Distinctive: line 30
Follow explicit testing budgets.
≈ “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.
Files
Testing Verification
Verify observable behavior at the narrowest reliable level, using project conventions and the failure cost to choose coverage.
Delegation
Run in the main conversation by default. Delegation can increase usage: obtain explicit approval for the proposed agent count and scope before using subagents. Reuse that approval within its bounds; ask again before expanding the approved count or scope.
Select evidence
Inspect relevant contracts, nearby tests, fixtures, commands, and CI definitions. Choose checks that can fail for the behavior in question, including important negative paths. Use test-strategy.md when the test level or coverage tradeoff is unclear.
Prefer existing test infrastructure and stable fixtures. Test public behavior rather than incidental implementation details; avoid hidden network dependencies, production data, and timing-based assertions. Add automation when it protects meaningful behavior, without writing tests that simply mirror trivial edits.
Browser work
Use the browser surface the host and project policy designate for interactive, exploratory, screenshot, and visual comparison work. If that surface fails, troubleshoot it before falling back to another, and say which surface produced the evidence. When the user named a specific surface, get their direction before substituting a different one.
Source-controlled Playwright E2E provides repeatable regression coverage. Keep it distinct from a manual Browser pass. Read ui-visual-verification.md when comparison conditions or visual ambiguity matter.
Run and finish
Run focused checks and required repository gates. Investigate failures before broadening, and rerun only affected checks after a fix. Reuse passing results for unchanged responsibilities and equivalent conditions. A commit, PR, merge, or handoff alone does not justify repeating a suite.
Follow explicit testing budgets. Propose a broader suite only when it could resolve a material gap; ask when project policy or unapproved cost requires it. Finish once the evidence is sufficient.
Report commands, results, relevant coverage, any browser surface used, and remaining gaps. Do not claim behavioral or visual verification from static checks alone.
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.