ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
- Repo stars 189
- Author updated Live
- Author repo ring
- Domain
- AI
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @LerianStudio · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
description: | Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failure…
category: ai
runtime: no special runtime
---
# ring:testing-skills-with-subagents output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: | Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN), then close loopholes (REFACTOR). Test skills that: enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements), have compliance costs (time, effort, rework), could be rationalized away ("just this once"), or contradict immediate goals (speed over quality). runs e….
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “When to use / Skip when / Related” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “| Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN), then close loopholes (REFACTOR). Test skills that: enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements), have compliance costs (time, effort, rework), could be rationalized away ("just this once"), or contradict immediate goals (speed over quality). runs e…”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “When to use / Skip when / Related” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “When to use / Skip when / Related”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
description: | Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failure…
category: ai
source: LerianStudio/ring
---
# ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
## When to use
- | Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN), then close…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “When to use / Skip when / Related” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "ring:testing-skills-with-subagents" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> When to use / Skip when / Related
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Testing Skills With Subagents
When to use
- Before deploying a new skill
- After editing an existing skill
- Skill enforces discipline that could be rationalized away
Skip when
- Pure reference skill → no behavior to test
- No rules that agents have incentive to bypass
Related
Complementary: ring:writing-skills, ring:test-driven-development
Testing skills is TDD applied to process documentation.
Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN), then close loopholes (REFACTOR).
Prerequisite: Understand ring:test-driven-development first. Complete worked example: examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md.
When to Test
Test skills that: enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements), have compliance costs (time, effort, rework), could be rationalized away ("just this once"), or contradict immediate goals (speed over quality).
Skip: Pure reference skills (API docs), skills without rules to violate.
TDD Mapping
| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do |
|---|---|---|
| RED | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
| Verify RED | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim |
| GREEN | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures |
| Verify GREEN | Pressure test | Run WITH skill, verify compliance under pressure |
| REFACTOR | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |
RED Phase: Watch It Fail
Run 3+ combined-pressure scenarios WITHOUT the skill. Document agent choices and rationalizations word-for-word.
Why verbatim? Exact wording reveals the loopholes to close.
Writing Pressure Scenarios
| Quality | Example |
|---|---|
| Bad | "What does the skill say?" — agent recites |
| Good | "Production down, $10k/min, 5min window" — single pressure |
| Great | "3hr/200 lines done, 6pm, dinner plans, forgot TDD. A) Delete B) Commit C) Tests now" — multi-pressure + forced choice |
Pressure types: Time (deadline), sunk cost (hours invested), authority (senior says skip), economic (job at stake), exhaustion (end of day), pragmatic ("being realistic").
Best tests combine 3+ pressures.
GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill
Address the specific failures documented in RED. Don't add hypothetical content — write just enough to address actual observed failures. Re-run same scenarios WITH skill; agent should now comply.
REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes
Agent still violated rule despite having the skill? Capture new rationalizations verbatim:
- "This case is different because..."
- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
For each rationalization, add: explicit negation rule, rationalization table entry, red flag entry.
Meta-test: "You read the skill and chose wrong anyway. How could the skill have been written to make the right answer the only acceptable one?"
Continue REFACTOR until no new rationalizations appear.
Signs of Bulletproof Skill
- Agent chooses correct option under maximum pressure
- Agent cites skill sections as justification
- Agent acknowledges temptation but follows rule anyway
- Meta-test reveals "skill was clear, I should follow it"
Real-World Impact
From applying TDD to TDD skill itself:
- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
- 10+ unique rationalizations discovered
- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
- Final: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review