Agent测试
- 作者仓库星标 19,707
- 作者更新于 实时读取
- 作者仓库 Claude-Code-Game-Studios
- 领域
- 工程开发
- 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
- @Donchitos · 未声明 license
- Token 消耗评级
- 低消耗
- 接入复杂程度
- 需简单配置
- 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
- Shell 执行
- 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: skill-improve
description: Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewri…
category: 工程开发
runtime: 无特殊运行时
---
# skill-improve 输出预览
## PART A: 任务判断
- 适用问题:代码实现、重构、调试或代码审查。
- 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“Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline”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代码实现、重构、调试或代码审查,并标出输入、限制和预期结果。
- **02** 执行计划:优先按“Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline”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、执行终端命令、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、执行终端命令;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。 原文出现了 `/skill-improve`、`/skill-test` 这类斜杠命令;如果你的 Agent 支持命令触发,优先用命令开场,再补充目标和边界。
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、执行终端命令。
先用一个小任务确认它会围绕“Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline”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: skill-improve
description: Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewri…
category: 工程开发
source: Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
---
# skill-improve
## 什么时候使用
- 用于组织测试、定位失败并形成修复闭环 适合处理工程开发场景下的代码实现、调试、重构、测试或代码审查,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…
- 面向代码实现、重构、调试或代码审查,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「Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline」组织步骤,不把推断写成作者事实。
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令;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 "skill-improve" {
输入层 -> 用户目标 + 目标文件 + 禁止范围 + 验收标准
上下文层 -> Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline
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、执行终端命令 | 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
} Skill Improve
Runs an improvement loop on a single skill: test → fix → retest → keep or revert.
Phase 1: Parse Argument
Read the skill name from the first argument. If missing, output usage and stop:
Usage: /skill-improve [skill-name]
Example: /skill-improve tech-debt
Verify .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md exists. If not, stop with:
"Skill '[name]' not found."
Phase 2: Baseline Test
Run /skill-test static [name] and record the baseline score:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific checks failed (Check 1–7)
Display to the user:
Static baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings
Failing: Check 4 (no ask-before-write), Check 5 (no handoff)
If baseline is 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, note it and proceed to Phase 2b.
Phase 2b: Category Baseline
Look up the skill's category: field in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.
If no category: field is found, display:
"Category: not yet assigned — skipping category checks."
and skip to Phase 3.
If category is found, run /skill-test category [name] and record the category baseline:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific category rubric metrics failed
Display to the user:
Category baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings ([category] rubric)
If BOTH static and category baselines are 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, stop: "This skill already passes all static and category checks. No improvements needed."
Phase 3: Diagnose
Read the full skill file at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
For each failing or warning static check, identify the exact gap:
- Check 1 fail → which frontmatter field is missing
- Check 2 fail → how many phases found vs. minimum required
- Check 3 fail → no verdict keywords anywhere in the skill body
- Check 4 fail → Write or Edit in allowed-tools but no ask-before-write language
- Check 5 warn → no follow-up or next-step section at the end
- Check 6 warn →
context: forkset but fewer than 5 phases found - Check 7 warn → argument-hint is empty or doesn't match documented modes
For each failing or warning category check (if category was assigned in Phase 2b), identify the exact gap in the skill's text. For example:
- If G2 fails (gate mode, full directors not spawned): skill body never references all 4 PHASE-GATE director prompts
- If A2 fails (authoring, no per-section May-I-write): skill asks once at the end, not before each section write
- If T3 fails (team, BLOCKED not surfaced): skill doesn't halt dependent work on blocked agent
Show the full combined diagnosis to the user before proposing any changes.
Phase 4: Propose Fix
Write a targeted fix for each failure and warning. Show the proposed changes as clearly marked before/after blocks. Only change what is failing — do not rewrite sections that are passing.
Ask: "May I write this improved version to .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md?"
If the user says no, stop here.
Phase 5: Write and Retest
Record the current content of the skill file (for revert if needed).
Write the improved skill to .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
Re-run /skill-test static [name] and record the new static score.
If a category was assigned, also re-run /skill-test category [name] and record the new category score.
Display the comparison:
Static: Before [N] failures, [M] warnings → After [N'] failures, [M'] warnings
Category: Before [N] failures, [M] warnings → After [N'] failures, [M'] warnings (if applicable)
Combined change: improved / no change / worse
Phase 6: Verdict
Count the combined failure total: static FAILs + category FAILs + static WARNs + category WARNs.
If combined score improved (combined failure count is lower than baseline): Report: "Score improved. Changes kept." Show a summary of what was fixed in each dimension.
If combined score is the same or worse:
Report: "Combined score did not improve."
Show what changed and why it may not have helped.
Ask: "May I revert .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md using git checkout?"
If yes: run git checkout -- .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md
Phase 7: Next Steps
- Run
/skill-test static allto find the next skill with failures. - Run
/skill-improve [next-name]to continue the loop on another skill. - Run
/skill-test auditto see overall coverage progress.
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