本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

test-blindspots

Find consequential behavior that a passing test suite does not establish, using focused exploratory checks. Use when the user asks what green tests miss or wants confidence in test coverage for a specific change. Not a general code review, routine test run, or debugging workflow for an already failing test.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md2.6 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。

Test blindspots

Passing tests establish their assertions under their setup. The gap to investigate is where the implementation and its tests share the same untested assumption.

Steps

  1. Establish the intended behavior and scope from the request, specification, changed code, callers, and relevant tests. Run the relevant baseline when possible. If it is already failing, report that limitation rather than describing it as green.
  2. Compare important behavior with what the tests actually assert. Look for a concrete gap: a mock replacing the boundary being claimed, an untested transition, a missing consumer expectation, or an invariant only exercised on the happy path. Choose by consequence and evidence, not by a generic checklist or coverage percentage.
  3. For each selected gap, state the question and design a small exploratory probe that can distinguish correct from incorrect behavior. Use existing tooling and isolated data. Prefer the actual component over a mock when the mock is the source of uncertainty.
  4. Execute the bounded probes within scope. Record observed behavior and the requirement it contradicts. If intended behavior is unclear, report a specification question; if execution is unavailable, report an untested risk. Neither is a confirmed defect.
  5. For a confirmed failure, preserve a minimal reproducer. Add a focused regression test when test edits are within the task's scope; verify that it fails for the intended reason. Report any deliberately failing reproducer separately from the baseline. Do not silently repair production code.
  6. Finish with confirmed defects first, then consequential untested risks or specification questions, the evidence for each, and what was not examined. Finding no consequential gap is a valid result.

Guardrails

  • Do not equate low coverage with a defect, or green tests with exhaustive correctness. A hypothetical scenario alone is not a finding.
  • Preserve existing tests and assertions. Do not weaken a test, expand the refactor, or install an unrelated testing framework to produce a result.
  • Keep probes away from production data and external side effects unless explicitly authorized. State when a local fixture cannot represent the real boundary.
  • Keep this proportional to the change. Stop when further exploration is unlikely to alter the user's decision.

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-skills3472026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-skills3472026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-skills3472026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-skills3472026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-skills3472026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-skills3472026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