测试助手
- 作者仓库星标 189
- 作者更新于 实时读取
- 作者仓库 ring
- 领域
- AI 智能
- 兼容 Agent
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- 信任分
- 88 / 100 · 社区维护
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @LerianStudio · 未声明 license
- Token 消耗评级
- 低消耗
- 接入复杂程度
- 即装即用
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 不需要
- 兼容的系统
- 未声明（默认跨平台）
- 底层运行要求
- 无特殊要求
- 文件与系统权限
-
- 只读
- 允许写入 / 修改
- 网络行为
- 仅限本地
- 安装命令数
- 26 条
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生，可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意： 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 智能
runtime: 无特殊运行时
---
# ring:testing-skills-with-subagents 输出预览
## PART A: 任务判断
- 适用问题：提示词、Agent 工作流、模型评估或自动化推理。
- 输入要求：目标材料、限制条件、期望输出和验收方式。
- 证据边界：围绕“When to use / Skip when / Related”读取原文规则，不把推断写成作者承诺。
## PART B: 执行结果
- **01** 任务判断：确认你的需求是否属于提示词、Agent 工作流、模型评估或自动化推理，并标出输入、限制和预期结果。
- **02** 执行计划：优先按“When to use / Skip when / Related”拆成步骤，说明每一步会读取什么、修改什么、产出什么。
- **03** 交付结果：给出可复制的命令、文件改动、检查清单或内容草稿，并说明如何继续迭代。
- **04** 风险边界：结合 读取文件、写入/修改文件、主要在本地完成、通常不需要额外 API Key 给出执行前确认项。
## Running Rules
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件；主要在本地完成；通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先小样例验证，再放大到真实任务。
- 交付时同时给结果、检查口径和下一步迭代建议。原文没有稳定的斜杠命令要求。安装验证后通常全局生效，直接在对话里点名这个 Skill 并描述任务即可。
告诉 Agent 目标文件或材料、期望结果、不可改范围、是否允许联网或执行命令。本 Skill 的权限画像是：读取文件、写入/修改文件。
先用一个小任务确认它会围绕“When to use / Skip when / Related”工作；涉及文件或命令时，先看 diff、日志、预览或测试结果。
检查最终产物是否包含明确结果、必要证据和下一步动作；如果输出泛泛而谈，就补充输入、边界和验收标准后重跑。
---
name: ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
description: | Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failure…
category: AI 智能
source: LerianStudio/ring
---
# ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
## 什么时候使用
- 用于组织测试、定位失败并形成修复闭环 适合处理AI Agent、提示词、模型评估与自动化推理，核心价值是把输入、判断、执行、验证和交付边界固定下来，避免 Agent 泛泛回答。 把任务拆成可执行、可检查、可继续迭代的步骤；通常不需要额外…
- 面向提示词、Agent 工作流、模型评估或自动化推理，优先处理能明确输入、步骤和验收标准的工作。
## 需要提供什么
- 目标材料、目录范围、期望结果和不可改动内容。
- 是否允许联网、执行命令、读写文件或调用外部服务。
## 执行规则
- 围绕「When to use / Skip when / Related」组织步骤，不把推断写成作者事实。
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件；主要在本地完成；通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先跑小样例，确认结果可检查后再扩大任务范围。
## 输出要求
- 给出最终产物、关键证据、验证方式和下一步动作。
- 信息不足时标记 unknown，不编造命令、平台或依赖。作者原文负责流程事实；仓库文件负责来源和命令；流狐只补充适用场景、限制和质量判断。
skill "ring:testing-skills-with-subagents" {
输入层 -> 用户目标 + 目标文件 + 禁止范围 + 验收标准
上下文层 -> When to use / Skip when / Related
规则层 -> SKILL.md 触发条件 / 执行顺序 / 输出格式
运行层 -> 无特殊运行时 | 读取文件、写入/修改文件 | 主要在本地完成
安全层 -> 通常不需要额外 API Key + 小任务验证 + diff / 日志复核
输出层 -> 可复制结果 + 检查清单 + 下一步迭代
}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
先判断是否适合
作者设计意图
作者的方法与取舍
边界和复核