算法艺术创作
algorithmic-art
通过代码和可调参数创作生成艺术与交互式视觉效果。
testing-strategy【设计与创意】Use when choosing a testing approach for a project — selecting frameworks, defining coverage thresholds, setting up test infrastructure, and establishing testing patterns. Triggers: new project setup, CI/CD pipeline design, coverage audit, test framework migration, quality standard definition.
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
Analyze the project context and recommend a comprehensive testing strategy. This skill selects appropriate frameworks, defines the testing pyramid, establishes coverage thresholds, and generates test configuration files. The goal is a repeatable, measurable testing foundation that the team can maintain.
Announce at start: "I'm using the testing-strategy skill to define the testing approach."
Goal: Understand the current stack, existing tests, and CI setup before recommending anything.
# Identify test files
find . -name "*.test.*" -o -name "*.spec.*" | head -30
# Check for test config
ls vitest.config.* jest.config.* pytest.ini pyproject.toml .mocharc.* 2>/dev/null
# Check current coverage
cat coverage/coverage-summary.json 2>/dev/null || echo "No coverage report found"
# Check CI config
cat .github/workflows/*.yml 2>/dev/null | head -50
Goal: Select frameworks and define the pyramid ratios.
| Stack | Unit | Integration | E2E |
|---|---|---|---|
| Node.js/TS | Vitest | Vitest + Supertest | Playwright |
| React/Next.js | Vitest + Testing Library | Vitest + MSW | Playwright/Cypress |
| Python | pytest | pytest + httpx | Playwright |
| Go | testing + testify | testing + testcontainers | Playwright |
| Rust | cargo test | cargo test + testcontainers | - |
| PHP/Laravel | Pest/PHPUnit | Pest + HTTP tests | Playwright/Dusk |
/\
/ \ E2E Tests (10%)
/ \ Critical user journeys only
/------\
/ \ Integration Tests (30%)
/ \ API endpoints, DB queries, service interactions
/------------\
/ \ Unit Tests (60%)
/ \ Pure functions, business logic, utilities
| Level | Test These | Do NOT Test These |
|---|---|---|
| Unit (60%) | Pure functions, business logic, data transformations, validations, state management | Framework internals, third-party libraries |
| Integration (30%) | API endpoints, database queries, service-to-service calls, auth flows | Individual functions in isolation |
| E2E (10%) | Critical user journeys (signup, purchase), cross-browser, accessibility | Edge cases (handle at unit level) |
Goal: Set realistic, enforceable coverage targets.
| Category | Minimum | Target | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 70% | 85% | Lines covered |
| Critical paths | 90% | 95% | Auth, payments, data access |
| New code (PRs) | 80% | 90% | Enforced in CI |
| Utilities | 95% | 100% | Pure functions are easy to test |
| Project Maturity | Overall Minimum | New Code Minimum | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenfield | 80% | 90% | Start high, maintain standard |
| Active (good coverage) | 70% | 85% | Maintain and improve |
| Legacy (low coverage) | 50% | 80% | Raise floor gradually |
| Prototype/MVP | 60% | 70% | Cover critical paths, accept gaps |
Goal: Produce working test configuration files and CI integration.
vitest.config.ts, jest.config.js, pytest.ini).env.test, test databases)import { defineConfig } from 'vitest/config';
export default defineConfig({
test: {
globals: true,
environment: 'jsdom',
coverage: {
provider: 'v8',
reporter: ['text', 'json', 'html'],
thresholds: {
lines: 80,
functions: 80,
branches: 80,
statements: 80,
},
},
include: ['src/**/*.test.{ts,tsx}'],
},
});
Goal: Provide example test files demonstrating project conventions.
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Is Wrong | Correct Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Testing implementation details | Breaks on every refactor, provides false confidence | Test behavior and outcomes |
| Excessive mocking | Tests nothing real, mocks mask real failures | Mock at boundaries only |
| Brittle CSS selectors in E2E | Break with styling changes | Use data-testid or accessible roles |
| Test interdependence | Ordering failures, flaky in CI | Each test must run independently |
| Slow tests blocking CI | Developers skip running tests | Parallelize, use test databases, mock external APIs |
| Snapshot overuse | Snapshots approved without reading, stale baselines | Use for stable output only |
| No coverage enforcement in CI | Coverage degrades over time | Enforce thresholds in CI pipeline |
| Same coverage target everywhere | Utilities and critical paths differ | Use per-category thresholds |
| Dependency Type | Mock Strategy | Example |
|---|---|---|
| External API | MSW / nock / responses | Third-party payment API |
| Database | Test database or in-memory | PostgreSQL test container |
| File system | Virtual FS or temp directory | File upload processing |
| Time/Date | Fake timers | Expiration logic |
| Environment vars | Override in test setup | Feature flags |
| Random/UUID | Seed or stub | ID generation |
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|---|
test-driven-development | Strategy defines frameworks; TDD defines the cycle |
acceptance-testing | Strategy includes acceptance test infrastructure |
code-review | Review checks that tests follow the defined strategy |
senior-frontend | Frontend testing uses strategy-selected frameworks |
senior-backend | Backend testing uses strategy-selected frameworks |
performance-optimization | Load tests are part of the overall testing strategy |
webapp-testing | Playwright E2E tests follow strategy pyramid |
FLEXIBLE — Adapt framework selection and coverage thresholds to the project context. The five-phase process and testing pyramid structure are strongly recommended but can be scaled to project size.