「assertion」の検索結果

Audits existing tests in any language using formal, research-backed test smell names and the testsmells.org 19-smell academic taxonomy. Use when the caller asks for an academic or citable test-smell review, named smell categories, or a formal severity-ranked smell assessment. Covers Assertion Roulette, Conditional Test Logic, Mystery Guest, Eager Test, Sleepy Test, Unknown Test, Sensitive Equality, and the rest of the catalog across .NET, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Go, Ruby, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, PowerShell, and C++. DO NOT USE FOR a quick pragmatic test review (use test-anti-patterns), writing or running tests, framework migration, coverage, or assertion-diversity metrics.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Provides file paths to language-specific reference files for the test ANALYSIS skills (assertion-quality, test-anti-patterns, test-gap-analysis, test-smell-detection, test-tagging). Read this catalog to discover available extension files (e.g., dotnet.md for .NET/MSTest/xUnit/NUnit/TUnit, python.md for pytest/unittest, typescript.md for Jest/Vitest/Mocha, java.md for JUnit/TestNG, etc.). Do not invoke this reference-only skill — its bundled files are read by the quality agent and analysis skills needing framework-specific lookup tables (test markers, assertion APIs, skip annotations, sleep patterns, mystery guest indicators, integration markers, setup/teardown, tag-support capability).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pseudo-mutation analysis ONLY: answer whether tests would catch a bug if production code changed, which meaningful changes would still pass, or which caller-visible mutations existing assertions would miss; verify candidates when requested, then optionally close verified gaps. Includes explicit read-only per-test composition for grading. Activate for behavioral blind spots tied to production behavior. Polyglot. DO NOT USE FOR: suite taxonomy, metadata, or distribution reports (test-tagging); .NET line-vs-branch or Cobertura interpretation, arithmetic, plateaus, project-wide coverage gaps, or coverage-backed test/CRAP priorities (coverage-analysis; use native coverage tooling outside .NET); named-target CRAP (crap-score); new suites (code-testing); assertion/smell audits; or mutation tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Golang struct and interface design patterns — composition, embedding, type assertions, type switches, interface segregation, dependency injection via interfaces, struct field tags, and pointer vs value receivers. Use this skill when designing Go types, defining or implementing interfaces, embedding structs or interfaces, writing type assertions or type switches, adding struct field tags for JSON/YAML/DB serialization, or choosing between pointer and value receivers. Also use when the user asks about "accept interfaces, return structs", compile-time interface checks, or composing small interfaces into larger ones.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Provides file paths to language-specific reference files for the test ANALYSIS skills (assertion-quality, test-anti-patterns, test-gap-analysis, test-smell-detection, test-tagging). Read this catalog to discover available extension files (e.g., dotnet.md for .NET/MSTest/xUnit/NUnit/TUnit, python.md for pytest/unittest, typescript.md for Jest/Vitest/Mocha, java.md for JUnit/TestNG, etc.). Do not invoke this reference-only skill — its bundled files are read by the quality agent and analysis skills needing framework-specific lookup tables (test markers, assertion APIs, skip annotations, sleep patterns, mystery guest indicators, integration markers, setup/teardown, tag-support capability).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audits existing tests in any language using formal, research-backed test smell names and the testsmells.org 19-smell academic taxonomy. Use when the caller asks for an academic or citable test-smell review, named smell categories, or a formal severity-ranked smell assessment. Covers Assertion Roulette, Conditional Test Logic, Mystery Guest, Eager Test, Sleepy Test, Unknown Test, Sensitive Equality, and the rest of the catalog across .NET, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Go, Ruby, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, PowerShell, and C++. DO NOT USE FOR a quick pragmatic test review (use test-anti-patterns), writing or running tests, framework migration, coverage, or assertion-diversity metrics.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pseudo-mutation analysis ONLY: answer whether tests would catch a bug if production code changed, which meaningful changes would still pass, or which caller-visible mutations existing assertions would miss; verify candidates when requested, then optionally close verified gaps. Includes explicit read-only per-test composition for grading. Activate for behavioral blind spots tied to production behavior. Polyglot. DO NOT USE FOR: suite taxonomy, metadata, or distribution reports (test-tagging); .NET line-vs-branch or Cobertura interpretation, arithmetic, plateaus, project-wide coverage gaps, or coverage-backed test/CRAP priorities (coverage-analysis; use native coverage tooling outside .NET); named-target CRAP (crap-score); new suites (code-testing); assertion/smell audits; or mutation tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Add new assertion function with comprehensive tests following TDD

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generates automated test oracles to verify correct software behavior. Creates assertion-based oracles (expected values), property-based oracles (invariants), differential oracles (comparing implementations), and metamorphic oracles (input transformations). Use when you need to generate assertions for test cases, identify invariants that should always hold, compare new vs legacy implementations, create metamorphic test relationships, validate function correctness, or improve test coverage with better verification strategies. Supports Python (pytest, unittest, hypothesis) and Java (JUnit, property testing).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Explain why counterexamples violate specifications by analyzing formal specifications (temporal logic, invariants, pre/postconditions, code contracts), informal requirements (user stories, acceptance criteria), test specifications (assertions, property-based tests), and providing step-by-step traces showing state changes, comparing expected vs actual behavior, identifying root causes, and assessing violation impact. Use when debugging test failures, understanding model checker output, explaining runtime assertion violations, analyzing static analysis warnings, or teaching specification concepts. Produces structured markdown explanations with traces, comparisons, state diagrams, and cause chains. Triggers when users ask why something failed, explain a violation, understand a counterexample, debug a specification, or analyze why a test fails.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate concrete counterexamples when formal verification, assertions, or specifications fail. Use this skill when debugging failed proofs, understanding why verification fails, creating minimal reproducing examples, analyzing assertion violations, investigating invariant breaks, or diagnosing specification mismatches. Produces concrete input values, execution traces, and state information that demonstrate the failure.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verify application state with AI-powered assertions

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Locate elements and verify app state with AI-powered assertions

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use production telemetry as INPUT to design new tests. Covers OpenTelemetry integration with tests, trace-based assertions, log-informed test creation, production-error analysis for coverage gaps, and telemetry-driven test prioritization. Use when: "trace-based testing," "design tests from logs," "OpenTelemetry assertions," "production errors point to test gaps," "telemetry-driven testing." Not for: safe rollout techniques (flags, canary) during release — use testing-in-production. Not for: scheduled post-deploy probes — use synthetic-monitoring. Not for: triaging CI failures — use ai-bug-triage. Related: testing-in-production, synthetic-monitoring, qa-metrics, ai-bug-triage.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JUnit 5, Mockito, AssertJ, and Testcontainers patterns for any JVM project. Covers test structure, parameterised tests, mocking discipline, fluent assertions, and integration testing with real containers. Stack-agnostic — referenced by every Java plugin in the marketplace. Use this skill to: - Write clear, maintainable unit tests with JUnit 5. - Mock dependencies with Mockito without overusing mocks. - Write expressive assertions with AssertJ. - Spin up real infrastructure (DBs, message brokers) with Testcontainers for integration tests. Do NOT use this skill for: - Spring-specific test slices (@SpringBootTest, @WebMvcTest, @DataJpaTest — those are in spring-boot-plugin skills). - Framework-specific mocking utilities (MockMvc, WebTestClient).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

検査器（linter / ガード / CI ゲート / バリデータ / フィルタ）そのものの検出力が差分で静かに落ちていないか、また新設した検査が実際に検出できることが実証されているかを diff-time で検出する。Check 1 unverified detection reduction（検査器の検出ロジック（正規表現・除外パターン・解決集合・allowlist・baseline）を変更して検出件数が減ったのに、減った 1 件ずつが誤検出であった根拠が示されないまま「誤検出を潰した」「N → M 件に減少」と改善として主張している）、Check 2 unproven guard detection power（新しい検査ロジック・CI ゲート・バリデーションを追加・変更したのに、検出すべき入力を注入して検出されること／検出すべきでない入力で黙ることを示す変異注入の証跡が無く、「追加した」「CI が緑」を検出力の証拠として扱っている）、の 2 Check を対象とする report-only。テスト自身のアサーションが実質何も検証していない構造は test-assertion-effectiveness、レビュー基準・品質ゲートの明示的な弱体化（ルールの削除・閾値の引き下げ・suppression entry 追加・lint ルールの無効化）は review-criteria-integrity、リファクタ完了主張一般の検証は refactor-claim-audit、workflow の permissions と action pin は gha-workflow-security、設定ファイルの構文・型の妥当性は config-json へ委譲する

Migrate test files from `as` assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn helpers. Use when tests need partial fixtures, intentionally invalid data, or safer replacements for TypeScript assertions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Complete guide for TUnit new-generation testing framework. Use when creating test projects with TUnit or migrating from xUnit to TUnit. Covers Source Generator driven test discovery, AOT compilation support, fluent async assertions. Includes project creation, [Test] attribute, lifecycle management, parallel control, and xUnit syntax comparison. Keywords: TUnit, tunit testing, source generator testing, AOT testing, new generation testing framework, [Test], [Arguments], TUnit.Assertions, Assert.That, Before(Test), After(Test), NotInParallel, TUnit.Templates, Microsoft.Testing.Platform, TUnit vs xUnit, parallel execution

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Complete guide for ASP.NET Core Web API integration testing. Use when performing integration testing on Web API endpoints or validating ProblemDetails error format. Covers WebApplicationFactory, IExceptionHandler, Testcontainers multi-container orchestration, Flurl URL construction, and AwesomeAssertions HTTP validation. Keywords: webapi integration testing, WebApplicationFactory, asp.net core integration test, webapi integration test, IExceptionHandler, ProblemDetails, ValidationProblemDetails, AwesomeAssertions, Flurl, Respawn, Be201Created, Be400BadRequest, multi-container testing, Collection Fixture, global exception handling

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

作業完了や不具合修正を報告する前に、テストやビルドを実行して結果を確認します。コミットやPR作成の前にも、実際の出力を根拠に状況を伝えるスキルです。

• 完了報告の前に結果を確認したいとき
• 不具合の修正を確かめたいとき
• コミットやPR前の検証

仕様や要件を、変更するファイル・関数の定義・テスト・確認手順が分かる実装計画にまとめるスキル。コードを書く前に作業を分け、担当者へ引き継げる形に整えます。

• コードを書く前に機能実装を計画したいとき
• 要件をテスト可能なタスクに分けたいとき
• 別の担当者やエージェントに引き継ぎたいとき

Reactの画面部品やフックを、利用者の操作と表示結果に沿ってテストします。通信の模擬やアクセシビリティ確認、実ブラウザーで検証する範囲の判断も支援します。

• Reactのフォームや部品のテスト追加
• 独自フックと非同期更新の検証
• APIの成功・失敗応答を模擬したいとき

Establishes a project's quality bar as a written contract and stops agents quietly lowering it. Interviews the user on which dimensions matter, supplies sane default thresholds when they have no number in mind, records everything in CONSTRAINTS.md, and watches the diff for a weakened bar — new @ts-ignore or eslint-disable suppressions, skipped or deleted tests, assertions stripped out, unimplemented stubs, thresholds edited down. Use when no quality bar is written down, when the user says "set up constraints" or "define our standards", when the user wants dimensions they care about — accessibility, web performance, coverage — set up as enforced constraints, when an agent keeps silencing checks or skipping tests to get to green, when you need a coverage or performance threshold and don't know what number to pick, or when an agent writes more code than anyone will read.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Add or extend a Paperclip Runner protocol evaluation definition, roster, assertion, or report fixture with provenance and narrow validation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。