「coverage」の検索結果

Generate and run tests for Adobe App Builder actions and UI components. Scaffolds Jest unit tests, integration tests against deployed actions, contract tests for Adobe API interactions, and React component tests using Testing Library. Provides mock helpers for State, Files, Events SDKs, @adobe/aio-lib-* clients, ExC Shell context (@adobe/exc-app), and UIX Guest SDK (@adobe/uix-guest). Use this skill whenever the user mentions testing App Builder actions, writing unit tests for Runtime actions, creating integration tests, mocking Adobe SDKs, setting up test fixtures, running aio app test, or wants to verify action behavior before deployment. Also trigger when users mention Jest configuration for App Builder, test coverage, CI test setup, React component test, Testing Library, UI test, Provider wrapper, test my page, test my form, test my table, test my component, mock shell context, mock extension context, debug test failures, or fix Jest errors.

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。

Write, run, and maintain tests using Vitest with proper isolation patterns and coverage targets.

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。

Enforces minimum quality thresholds in CI including code coverage, linting, type checking, and security scanning. Provides required checks, PR rules, and automated enforcement. Use for "quality gates", "CI checks", "code quality", or "PR requirements".

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。

Creates comprehensive permission tests ensuring RBAC doesn't regress with test matrices, CI gating, and authorization coverage. Use for "RBAC testing", "permission tests", "authorization testing", or "access control tests".

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 comprehensive API test suites using Jest, Vitest, or Supertest from Express, Next.js, Fastify, or other API routes. Creates integration tests, contract tests, and edge case coverage. Use when users request "generate api tests", "create endpoint tests", "api test suite", or "integration tests for api".

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 for the search-planning stage of a literature review, when database lanes and language layers must be chosen, when DOI coverage policy is unclear, or when inclusion and exclusion criteria need drafting before any source is read; not for running the screening and PRISMA pipeline of a formal review, which is prisma-scoping-review-pipeline.

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 when paired tr.md and en.md files need a parity verdict, when titles, frontmatter, headings, or DOI sets may have drifted between languages, or when a bilingual document is approaching release and its translation coverage needs an audit.

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks for "browser tests", "playwright tests", "end-to-end testing", "test user flows", "E2E coverage", "integration tests for UI", "page object pattern", "/e2e command", or discusses automated browser testing. Covers the E2E test loop workflow, Playwright patterns, page objects, and selector strategies.

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。

Week 2 of the exploit development curriculum. Covers fuzzing methodology: target selection, corpus generation, coverage-guided fuzzing with AFL++/libFuzzer, structured fuzzing, and triage/deduplication. Use when setting up fuzz campaigns, selecting harness strategies, or triaging fuzzer output.

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。

| Type | Coverage | Speed | 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。

Enterprise-grade code review agent. Reviews PRs, diffs, or code files for security vulnerabilities, performance issues, error handling gaps, architecture smells, and test coverage. Works with any language, any repo, no dependencies required.

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。

Designs and audits data retention and file compaction for an embedded SQLite datastore in a long-lived service — a unified retention registry (one declared policy per table), TTL / absolute-age / row-count-cap policies, a fail-loud coverage guard, WAL/checkpoint tuning, and auto_vacuum/incremental-vacuum so pruning actually shrinks the file. Use when a SQLite DB grows unbounded, a table has an index but no DELETE, a pruned DB never shrinks on disk, metrics are stored as raw events forever, or a new table needs bounding. Keywords retention policy, TTL, reaper, prune, VACUUM, auto_vacuum, incremental_vacuum, WAL checkpoint, freelist, DB bloat, row cap, per-tenant quota. NOT for Postgres/MySQL/server-DB partitioning or TTL, log-line rate-limiting/sampling, backup/replication, schema migrations, or query-performance indexing.

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。

Designs or reviews provenance-bound DAG attempt traces, coverage gaps, cancellation, and unknown-effect reconciliation. NOT for claiming execution completeness, deployment monitoring, or root-cause proof.

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。

Ranks eligible skill candidates with explicit retrieval evidence, capability coverage, and uncertainty. NOT for discovery, authorization, or execution planning.

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。

Produces a narrow-interval quality signal for a WinDAGs skill that a third party can verify without inspecting model weights or method internals. The mechanism is attribution-kNN over a tamper-evident outcome log (task→skills→accept/reject store), combined with a conformal-prediction calibration certificate that provides a formal coverage guarantee. Thompson/Beta sampling is explicitly rejected as a category error: it produces a selection signal for stationary i.i.d. rewards, not an attestation signal for context-dependent LLM output quality. The resulting bundle — outcome-log Merkle root + conformal threshold + optional TEE guardrail signature — constitutes a "narrow-interval trust" credential: verifiable, bounded, and internals-opaque.

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 every visual-evidence artifact (screenshot/GIF/recording) attached to a PR carries a provenance manifest binding it to real daemon-backed truth — daemon port, run id, transcript head hash, agent node id, commit, and an honest real/fixture/mock source label — and that operator-control-panel PRs cover the required set of proof states. Use when gating a PR's proof artifacts before merge, auditing whether a "LIVE" visual claim is backed by a real daemon run versus a reused or fixture-backed mock, or defining the required state-coverage set for a control-panel change. NOT for the capture technique itself — headless Playwright, `screencapture -x -l`, non-interruptive capture (use port-daddy-agent-skill's visual-evidence doctrine), designing the receipt body schema an artifact attaches to (use agent-work-receipt-designer), or the broader dogfood/Potemkin product-quality bar (use multi-agent-authoring-product-bar).

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。