agentsclimarketplace

Testing

Skill nevitonsantana/adaptive-skills/skills/testing

Choose the minimum reliable proof for a change based on risk, reversibility, and impact.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add nevitonsantana/adaptive-skills --skill testing

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.8 KB, 541 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Overview

Use this skill to calibrate validation. It keeps teams away from both careless closure and ritualized over-testing.

When to Use

  • before closing meaningful work
  • when fixing a bug
  • when changing behavior or a contract

When NOT to Use

  • as a generic ceremony disconnected from risk
  • to demand exhaustive proof for tiny reversible changes

Core Moves

  1. Name what could break.
  2. Choose the minimum reliable proof.
  3. Run the main-path smoke when relevant.
  4. Record what was actually validated.

Optional Modules

  • Regression sweep — Check the most likely adjacent failures when the change is broad.
  • Automation check — Decide whether the change deserves a lasting automated test.
  • Rollback check — Clarify how the change can be reversed if the proof is inconclusive.
  • Behavior-first test design — Design tests around public behavior and stable interfaces, not private implementation details. A passing test should describe a capability the system provides, and should survive internal refactoring when behavior is unchanged.
  • Vertical test slice — Work in one behavior-sized cycle at a time instead of writing tests horizontally in bulk: define the expected behavior, create the smallest failing proof, implement the smallest passing change, then refactor.

Activation Triggers

  • Use the regression sweep when multiple surfaces share the same dependency.
  • Use the automation check when the bug or rule is likely to return.
  • Use the rollback check when failure cost is material.
  • Use behavior-first test design when a test risks coupling to private methods, incidental data shape, or internal collaborator calls.
  • Use the vertical test slice when the work tempts you to write many tests at once instead of one behavior per cycle.

Expected Output

  • proof strategy
  • executed evidence
  • known validation gaps

Verification

  • The proof matches the risk.
  • The main path or failure path was checked intentionally.
  • Unvalidated areas are explicit rather than hidden.
  • The test can survive internal refactoring as long as behavior stays the same.
  • The test fails for the intended behavior gap, not for an incidental detail.
  • The test does not rely on private method names, incidental data shape, or internal collaborator calls unless that coupling is explicitly justified.

Handoff Signals

  • A specialist needs to validate a different layer.
  • The available proof is not enough for the current risk level.

Pairs Well With

  • workflow
  • debugging
  • refactoring

Anti-patterns

  • Closing work with no evidence.
  • Confusing activity with validation.
  • Using “manual tested” as a content-free stamp.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most test skills give in 541 tokens

Counted across 964 of the 1,571 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Close the browser when donein 55 of 964, across 12 files
  • Wait for network idle statein 51 of 964, across 6 files
  • Launch Chromium in headless modein 49 of 964, across 6 files
  • Use descriptive selectors for elementsin 49 of 964, across 6 files
  • Run provided scripts with help flag firstin 49 of 964, across 6 files
  • Add appropriate explicit waitsin 48 of 964, across 5 files
  • Use bundled scripts as black boxesin 46 of 964, across 3 files
  • Do not read script source codein 46 of 964, across 3 files
  • Use sync playwright for scriptsin 46 of 964, across 3 files
  • Inspect dom before executing actionsin 46 of 964, across 3 files
  • Run the full test suitein 37 of 964
  • Write the failing test firstin 29 of 964, across 23 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • name what could break
  • choose the minimum reliable proof
  • run the main-path smoke when relevant
  • record what was actually validated
  • check adjacent failures for broad changes
  • decide whether the change deserves a lasting automated test

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,764. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.