「testability」の検索結果

Review EXISTING test code for quality, smells, and testability issues. Detects test smells across six dimensions — readability, reliability, diagnostic value, design, AI-generated, and coverage — analyzes testability of application code, and backs the qualitative smells with mutation testing. Use when: "review my tests," "test quality audit," "test smells," "testability analysis," "are these tests any good." Not for: generating new tests — use `ai-test-generation`. Not for: testing AI features in your product — use `ai-system-testing`. Related: unit-testing, shift-left-testing, coverage-analysis, ai-test-generation.

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。

Guide for Private and Internal member testing strategies. Use when you need to test private or internal members, configure InternalsVisibleTo, or evaluate testability design. Covers design-first thinking, reflection testing, strategy pattern refactoring, AbstractLogger pattern, and decision frameworks. Keywords: private method testing, internal testing, InternalsVisibleTo, reflection testing, GetMethod BindingFlags, Meziantou.MSBuild.InternalsVisibleTo, testability design, strategy pattern refactoring, testability

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。

ALWAYS USE when asked to migrate, replace, or make testable existing C# static calls with a named wrapper or built-in abstraction: DateTime.UtcNow/Now or DateTimeOffset.UtcNow to TimeProvider/IClock, File.* to IFileSystem or an existing store such as ITextFileStore, and Environment.* to an existing reader such as IEnvironmentReader. Covers scoped files/projects, constructor injection, replacing temp-file or process-environment tests with fakes, "already registered" abstractions, and static classes whose callers/signatures must stay unchanged. Preserves DateTimeKind and call count. DO NOT USE for finding statics (detect-static-dependencies), choosing/designing a new wrapper (generate-testability-wrappers), behavior tests with no chosen seam (testability-obstacle), or test-framework migration.

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。

DO NOT USE when the target already consumes an injected interface or built-in abstraction such as IFileSystem or TimeProvider, even if the request says "generate a wrapper"; no new wrapper is needed. Use only when C# source calls an ambient/static dependency and no injectable seam exists: first-time TimeProvider, IHttpClientFactory, or System.IO.Abstractions adoption; minimal Environment/Console/Process wrappers; IProcessRunner; DI registration; or an ambient seam that preserves a static API. Exclude static detection (detect-static-dependencies), migration to an existing/registered abstraction (migrate-static-to-wrapper), one blocked behavior plus deterministic tests (testability-obstacle), and general interface design.

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。

DO NOT USE when the target already consumes an injected interface or built-in abstraction such as IFileSystem or TimeProvider, even if the request says "generate a wrapper"; no new wrapper is needed. Use only when C# source calls an ambient/static dependency and no injectable seam exists: first-time TimeProvider, IHttpClientFactory, or System.IO.Abstractions adoption; minimal Environment/Console/Process wrappers; IProcessRunner; DI registration; or an ambient seam that preserves a static API. Exclude static detection (detect-static-dependencies), migration to an existing/registered abstraction (migrate-static-to-wrapper), one blocked behavior plus deterministic tests (testability-obstacle), and general interface design.

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。

ALWAYS USE when asked to migrate, replace, or make testable existing C# static calls with a named wrapper or built-in abstraction: DateTime.UtcNow/Now or DateTimeOffset.UtcNow to TimeProvider/IClock, File.* to IFileSystem or an existing store such as ITextFileStore, and Environment.* to an existing reader such as IEnvironmentReader. Covers scoped files/projects, constructor injection, replacing temp-file or process-environment tests with fakes, "already registered" abstractions, and static classes whose callers/signatures must stay unchanged. Preserves DateTimeKind and call count. DO NOT USE for finding statics (detect-static-dependencies), choosing/designing a new wrapper (generate-testability-wrappers), behavior tests with no chosen seam (testability-obstacle), or test-framework migration.

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。

Applies hexagonal architecture isolating domain from infrastructure. Use when designing systems where testability and port/adapter separation are priorities.

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。

Move quality earlier in the development lifecycle. Covers dev/QA pairing patterns, Three Amigos sessions, TDD facilitation (Red-Green-Refactor), PR review checklists for testability, and Definition of Done with quality gates. Includes shift-left maturity model for team assessment. Use when: "shift left," "TDD," "dev-QA pairing," "definition of done," "testability," "quality culture," "QA in sprint planning." Not for: writing the unit tests themselves — use unit-testing; automated PR test-quality review at scale — use ai-qa-review; multi-quarter QA direction or roadmap — use test-strategy. Related: unit-testing, ai-qa-review, test-strategy.

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。

Design and write QA test artifacts - test cases, test plans, acceptance criteria, API test specs, and PR testability reviews. Use this skill whenever a QA engineer or SDET needs to translate requirements, user stories, or feature specs into structured test documentation. Trigger on phrases like "write test cases", "create a test plan", "define acceptance criteria", "review this PR for testability", "write API test specs", "test coverage for this feature", "what should we test", "how do we test this", or any request to structure what and how to test before execution begins. Also trigger when a developer asks "is this testable?" or a PM asks "what are the edge cases?".

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 surfacing architectural friction and proposing deepening refactors (shallow modules → deep modules) for testability and AI-navigability. Triggers on "improve architecture", "find deepening opportunities", "where is this codebase shallow", "architecture review". Emits structured candidates + precise patches; delegates ALL rendering to mk:preview. NOT for diagram/HTML rendering (see mk:preview); NOT for trade-off deliberation (see mk:party); NOT for plan critique (see mk:plan-ceo-review).

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。

4人の異なる専門家ペルソナ（20年ベテランエンジニア、TDDエキスパート、Clean Codeエキスパート、バグハンター）で ソースコードを批判的にレビューするスキル。設計判断、テスト容易性、可読性、バグ検出の観点から コードの問題を検出し、改善提案を行う。Python/JavaScriptに対しては追加のチェックポイントを適用。 バグハンターは状態遷移、例外パス、依存関係、非同期競合に特化し、本番環境での問題を事前に検出する。 Use when reviewing source code from multiple expert perspectives to find design flaws, testability issues, code quality problems, and runtime bugs. Triggers: "critical code review", "multi-persona code review", "expert code review", "code quality assessment", "find bugs".

cmux package architecture, refactor layering, dependency inversion, file organization, DocC documentation, package design discipline, testability, and Swift 6 concurrency rules. Use before adding or meaningfully rewriting Swift files, Swift packages, coordinators, services, repositories, or public package APIs.

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。

Architectural code review — coding standards, SOLID, testability, performance concerns.

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。

ALWAYS USE for test work that requires changes: write, add, generate, repair, or strengthen tests for existing code in xUnit, MSTest, NUnit, pytest, Vitest/Jest, Go, or another framework. Includes regression cases, failing or flaky tests, coverage-driven additions, and audit-then-fix requests. Focused work stays direct; broad or multi-stage work invokes test-engineer. DO NOT USE for only running tests, analysis-only audits, framework/platform migrations, a test blocked on a missing production seam (testability-obstacle), or MSTest API/configuration corrections that do not design new cases (writing-mstest-tests). Within an active test-engineer pipeline, reuse supplied guidance and do not re-enter this skill.

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。

MUST USE for C#/.NET deterministic tests that require the smallest production seam for DateTime/Task.Delay/File/Environment/Guid/Random, static API preservation, nested/parallel overrides, or no real I/O. USE ONLY when the target workspace contains C# source plus a .csproj or .sln. DO NOT USE for audits, bulk migration, code that already has an injectable seam, or an explicit migration to a user-named existing abstraction (migrate-static-to-wrapper). Use instead of general test generation when the requested test is impossible without a production edit and seam selection is still open.

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。

ACTIVATION PREREQUISITE: the request or discovered target must explicitly identify C#, .NET, `.cs`, or `.csproj`; otherwise stay dormant without invoking this skill. USE FOR: locating System.DateTime.Now/UtcNow, System.IO.File/Directory, System.Environment, HttpClient, Console, or Process usage in C#; auditing C# code for hard-to-test framework dependencies; or verifying those C# calls are already abstracted. DO NOT USE FOR: any target lacking the activation prerequisite; generating wrappers (use generate-testability-wrappers); migrating code (use migrate-static-to-wrapper); or general code review.

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。

Guidance for configuring dependency injection in .NET MAUI apps — service registration in MauiProgram.cs, lifetime selection (Singleton / Transient / Scoped), constructor injection, Shell navigation auto-resolution, platform-specific registrations, and testability patterns. USE FOR: "dependency injection", "DI setup", "AddSingleton", "AddTransient", "AddScoped", "service registration", "constructor injection", "IServiceProvider", "MauiProgram DI", "register services", "BindingContext injection". DO NOT USE FOR: data binding (use maui-data-binding), Shell route configuration (use maui-shell-navigation), unit-test mocking frameworks (use standard xUnit and NSubstitute patterns).

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。

Comprehensive guide for dependency injection (DI) in Golang. Covers why DI matters (testability, loose coupling, separation of concerns, lifecycle management), manual constructor injection, and DI library comparison (google/wire, uber-go/dig, uber-go/fx, samber/do). Use this skill when designing service architecture, setting up dependency injection, refactoring tightly coupled code, managing singletons or service factories, or when the user asks about inversion of control, service containers, or wiring dependencies in Go. For a specific DI library, → See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-google-wire`, `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-uber-dig`, `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-uber-fx`, or `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-samber-do` skills.

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。

Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal.

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。

Critical Akka.NET best practices including EventStream vs DistributedPubSub, supervision strategies, error handling, Props vs DependencyResolver, work distribution patterns, and cluster/local mode abstractions for testability.

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 the user mentions SwiftUI architecture review, separation of concerns, testability issues, or "logic in view" problems.

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。

Requirements quality critique dimensions for peer review - confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, and priority 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。

Design or improve module interfaces using deep-module heuristics. Use when deciding where a seam belongs, reducing caller-facing complexity, improving testability or navigability, or comparing module designs.

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。

ALWAYS USE for test work that requires changes: write, add, generate, repair, or strengthen tests for existing code in xUnit, MSTest, NUnit, pytest, Vitest/Jest, Go, or another framework. Includes regression cases, failing or flaky tests, coverage-driven additions, and audit-then-fix requests. Focused work stays direct; broad or multi-stage work invokes test-engineer. DO NOT USE for only running tests, analysis-only audits, framework/platform migrations, a test blocked on a missing production seam (testability-obstacle), or MSTest API/configuration corrections that do not design new cases (writing-mstest-tests). Within an active test-engineer pipeline, reuse supplied guidance and do not re-enter this skill.

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。