本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

regression-proof

Fix a reported bug with a regression test that demonstrably fails on the original behavior and passes after the fix. Use when implementing a bug fix or checking whether a proposed fix actually addresses a reported failure. Not a general coverage audit or new-feature workflow.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Regression proof

A passing test is evidence for a fix only if it can distinguish the broken behavior from the intended behavior.

Steps

  1. Establish the reported failure, expected behavior, and authorized scope from the request, relevant code, and existing tests. Record the starting state, including uncommitted changes. Run the relevant baseline and reproduce the bug before editing when possible; distinguish a product failure from a broken test environment.
  2. Add the smallest regression test that exercises the real failing path and asserts the required outcome. Run it against the original behavior and verify that it fails for the reported reason, not an import error, missing dependency, or unrelated failure. Reuse an existing test if it already demonstrates this.
  3. Trace the cause and make a scoped fix when implementation is authorized. For review-only requests, assess the proposed fix without silently changing production code. Preserve the evidence from the original failure.
  4. Run the same regression test against the fixed behavior. If the fix existed before the test, compare with the original implementation in an isolated copy or worktree that preserves the relevant starting state. Do not reset the user's working tree. If an equivalent comparison cannot be made, report that limitation rather than claiming a verified before/after result.
  5. Check the neighboring behavior most likely to be affected. Where an incomplete fix could pass the reproducer, add a discriminating case. Use reference comparisons, bounded randomized checks, or performance measurements only when the failure mechanism warrants them; record seeds and conditions needed to reproduce results.
  6. Finish with the cause, fix or review finding, commands and observed before/after outcomes, adjacent checks, and remaining uncertainty. If the bug cannot be reproduced or expected behavior is unresolved, say what evidence is missing and avoid a speculative fix. Stop once the scoped claim is supported and relevant checks pass.

Guardrails

  • Never weaken assertions, change expected behavior merely to make a test pass, or mock away the boundary responsible for the bug.
  • Preserve existing tests and unrelated user changes. Keep comparison artifacts isolated; do not use destructive checkout or reset operations to recreate the original failure.
  • A missing dependency or unavailable original version is a verification limitation, not proof of correctness. Keep pre-existing failures separate from regressions caused by the fix.
  • Keep execution within the task's authorization. A local reproducer does not authorize production writes, external side effects, or an unrelated refactor.
  • A regression test establishes the tested behavior, not the absence of all bugs. This skill does not change the host's reasoning-effort setting.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design tools, scripts, and CLIs that an agent will call, so the interface teaches its own use instead of a wall of prose and examples. Use when building an MCP server or tool definition, writing an agent-facing script, or when an agent keeps misusing a tool it already has.

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。

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3462026年9月28日 更新

Test a consequential technical assumption with a small, falsifiable experiment before committing to an approach. Use when a plan depends on uncertain runtime, integration, or data behavior that inspection alone cannot establish. Not for preference interviews or routine implementation.

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。

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3462026年9月28日 更新

Surface the user's unknown unknowns before work starts. Use when the user is entering an unfamiliar codebase area, an unfamiliar domain (design, video, infra), or explicitly asks for a "blindspot pass" or to find their "unknown unknowns."

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。

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3462026年9月28日 更新

Generate several genuinely different throwaway variations (designs, approaches, drafts) for the user to react to. Use when the user can only recognize what they want by seeing it — visual design, UX flows, naming, tone — or asks to brainstorm or prototype before building.

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。

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3462026年9月28日 更新

After a working session, produce a report on what changed plus a quiz the user must pass before merging. Use when the user asks "what did we actually do," wants to review a large change, or invokes a quiz before merge.

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。

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3462026年9月28日 更新

Audit the instructions an agent already carries — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, skills, tool descriptions — for contradictions, over-constraint, and duplication, then propose a cut list. Use when an agent ignores its own instructions, when a CLAUDE.md has grown bloated, or when the user asks to audit or rightsize their agent context.

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。

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills3462026年9月28日 更新

Neeeophytee のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する