Registry に収録

refine-tests

Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the user wants

ソースを確認 GitHub で見る

価格未確認★ 20 GitHub スター登録情報の更新日 · 2026年10月9日agent-skill

概要

Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the project's test design and writing conventions. Typically invoked as `/refine-tests <PATH>`.

説明全文を読む

ソース文書であり、このサイトへの操作指示ではありません。コマンド実行前に権限を確認してください。

Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements.

Scope Check

This skill is for refining existing tests for conformance to the guides. If the request is out of scope, redirect:

Adding tests for a new feature or spec change → use /plan-feature instead
A failing test, or a test that verifies incorrect behavior → use /fix-bug instead

Input

One or more file path arguments. Resolve them to the concrete set of test files to review before proceeding.

If no path argument is given, use AskUserQuestion to ask the user for the targets. Do not derive targets from git status — that would silently widen the scope beyond what was requested.

Workflow

Recording implementation notes: Notes for this run go in /tmp/refine-tests-notes-$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID.md. Immediately before your first append in this run — and only then — delete that file if it exists (usually it will not), so this run starts from an empty one: the session id is shared by every /refine-tests run in the session, so an earlier run abandoned before Step 7 would otherwise leak its notes into this one.

While working through Steps 5–6, whenever one of the following occurs, immediately append a line to that file — do not wait until the end to reconstruct these from memory:

A Finding was ambiguous, or proved wrong once applied, and you made a judgment call → Design decisions
You intentionally departed from a Finding, and why → Deviations
You considered alternatives and chose one, and why → Tradeoffs
You changed production code — a method demoted to private, a dead test-only seam removed, or any other production edit — and why → Production code changes

Append with Bash so the shell expands $CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID — the Write tool cannot append and does not expand environment variables:

cat >> "/tmp/refine-tests-notes-$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID.md" <<'EOF'
- **Production code changes**: <one line>
EOF

When a step delegates to another skill (/simplify and /resolve-diagnostics in Step 6), append the note yourself from what it returns — they do not write to this file.

Step 1: Read the Target Tests

Launch Explore agent(s) to read the target test file(s) and the production code they exercise. Reading the production code is necessary to judge layer-appropriateness and structural-vs-spec-based issues.

Step 2: Conformance Review

Load the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide skills. Apply all rules that are verifiable from the test code alone — no requirements document is available.

The following sections of test-designing-guide require requirements input or production-design changes and are out of scope:

Section 5 (requirements coverage / traceability / same-layer witness)
Section 6 (design-document output format)
Section 7 (Testability Assessment — remedies require production-design changes)

Produce a Findings list. Each finding records:

Location: file path + test method name
Category: which guide + rule violated, or duplicate test (see Step 3)
Concrete proposed change

Step 3: Duplicate Detection

Compare the target test files against each other and against other tests in the same test class.

A true duplicate has both of the following in common with another test:

Same condition — identical setup / input
Same assertion — identical observation / expected value

Do NOT flag tests that share only one:

Different condition → not a duplicate
Same condition but different assertion → not a duplicate

For each true duplicate pair, append a Finding to the Findings list from Step 2:

Proposed change: delete the redundant test (the less accurately named one) and keep the more accurately named one. Name both explicitly.
Do NOT propose merging same-condition tests into a single multi-assert test.

Exception — defer to Step 4: If one test in a duplicate pair is [Category("Internal")] and the other is a public-seam test, do not apply the name-quality tiebreaker here. Do not delete the public-seam test on naming grounds. Defer the pair to Step 4, which always keeps the public-seam test.

Step 4: Seam Redundancy — Internal-Method Tests

Test through the same seam production code uses. A [Category("Internal")] test exercises an internal method directly. For each such test in the targets, append Findings via two passes. Overriding rule: never trade coverage for a tidier seam; when in doubt, keep the test (and keep internal).

Layer scope: This step operates within the unit test layer only. Tests with [Category("Integration")] or [Category("VisualVerification")] applied run under different execution contexts and are not candidates for a covering test — do not consider them when searching for a public-seam test that covers the same scenario.

Pass 1 — classify each [Category("Internal")] test:

A public-seam test already covers it (from the test code alone): a separate unit test asserts the same observable outcome for an equivalent scenario through a public method → Finding: delete the internal test, keep the public-seam test (name both).
No public-seam test covers it — using the production code read in Step 1: a. Not fully observable through public — a public caller masks or only partially exposes the asserted outcome → keep the internal test; no Finding. "Cheap to extract" ≠ "observable publicly." b. Sanctioned extraction — the method takes 3 or more parameters (a heuristic; the real trigger is that several independent conditions combine so exhaustive public-seam coverage cost explodes — this can also occur with fewer parameters that each take many values, and may not apply when the extra parameters don't drive branching), and it isolates cohesive sub-logic (a pure computation or decision that depends on only 1–2 of those inputs) → keep the internal test; no Finding. Applies regardless of how the test was created. c. Otherwise (consolidatable into public) → Finding: rewrite the test to assert the same observable outcome through the public method (merge with an existing public-seam test where natural). The Finding must name explicitly: the target public method to go through, the existing public-seam test to merge into (or state that a new test method is created, with its name), and the observable outcome to assert — the implementer applies the Finding as written and must not need to re-derive these decisions.

Pass 2 — visibility sweep: for each internal method whose direct internal test goes away in Pass 1 (deleted via 1 or moved via 2c), search the whole solution for usages (internal is visible cross-assembly via InternalsVisibleTo — check other production and test assemblies, not just files in scope):

Test-only seam wrapped in #if UNITY_INCLUDE_TESTS, test now gone → Finding: remove the dead seam.
Nothing outside the declaring class still needs internal access → Finding: demote the method to private (do not break any #if conditional compilation).
Any doubt, or any remaining cross-assembly internal use → leave it internal; no Finding.

Pass 2 Findings change production code — record the file path + method explicitly.

Step 5: Modify Tests

Load the test-writing-guide skill — and the code-writing-guide skill if the Findings include production changes; do not rely on automatic skill triggering
Apply the changes described in the Findings list from Steps 2–4 — test edits, plus any production visibility changes (a method demoted to private, or a dead test-only seam removed)
Run tests with /run-tests and confirm all pass

Step 6: Refactoring

Run the Claude Code built-in /simplify skill (Skill({skill: "simplify"}) — not a plugin skill) to apply quality improvements to the modified code
Run tests with /run-tests and confirm all pass
Run /resolve-diagnostics with the files modified in Step 5 — compute the list after /simplify finishes, so its edits are covered too
Commit all remaining changes to git

Step 7: Implementation Notes

Read /tmp/refine-tests-notes-$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID.md if it exists — if it was never created, every category is "None"
Report its entries to the user in chat under ## Implementation Notes — one bold sub-heading per category, each followed by a bullet list. Always include all five categories in this order: Design decisions, Deviations, Tradeoffs, Production code changes, Open questions. Write - None for any category with nothing recorded, and add any last-minute Open questions before finalizing
Delete the temporary notes file if it exists

ソースを見る ↗

ファイルのメタデータ

name: refine-tests
description: >-
  Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and
  test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the
  user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the
  project's test design and writing conventions.
  Typically invoked as `/refine-tests <PATH>`.
argument-hint: "[file paths]"
license: Unlicense
metadata:
  author: Koji Hasegawa

元のテキストを表示

---
name: refine-tests
description: >-
Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and
test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the
user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the
project's test design and writing conventions.
Typically invoked as `/refine-tests <PATH>`.
argument-hint: "[file paths]"
license: Unlicense
metadata:
author: Koji Hasegawa
---

Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements.

## Scope Check

This skill is for refining **existing** tests for conformance to the guides. If the request is out of scope, redirect:

- Adding tests for a new feature or spec change → use `/plan-feature` instead
- A failing test, or a test that verifies incorrect behavior → use `/fix-bug` instead

## Input

One or more file path arguments. Resolve them to the concrete set of test files to review before proceeding.

If no path argument is given, use `AskUserQuestion` to ask the user for the targets. Do not derive targets from `git status` — that would silently widen the scope beyond what was requested.

## Workflow

**Recording implementation notes:** Notes for this run go in `/tmp/refine-tests-notes-$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID.md`. Immediately before your **first** append in this run — and only then — delete that file if it exists (usually it will not), so this run starts from an empty one: the session id is shared by every `/refine-tests` run in the session, so an earlier run abandoned before Step 7 would otherwise leak its notes into this one.

While working through Steps 5–6, whenever one of the following occurs, immediately append a line to that file — do not wait until the end to reconstruct these from memory:

- A Finding was ambiguous, or proved wrong once applied, and you made a judgment call → **Design decisions**
- You intentionally departed from a Finding, and why → **Deviations**
- You considered alternatives and chose one, and why → **Tradeoffs**
- You changed production code — a method demoted to `private`, a dead test-only seam removed, or any other production edit — and why → **Production code changes**

Append with `Bash` so the shell expands `$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID` — the `Write` tool cannot append and does not expand environment variables:

```bash
cat >> "/tmp/refine-tests-notes-$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID.md" <<'EOF'
- **Production code changes**: <one line>
EOF
```

When a step delegates to another skill (`/simplify` and `/resolve-diagnostics` in Step 6), append the note yourself from what it returns — they do not write to this file.

### Step 1: Read the Target Tests

### Step 2: Conformance Review

Load the `test-designing-guide` and `test-writing-guide` skills. Apply all rules that are **verifiable from the test code alone** — no requirements document is available.

The following sections of `test-designing-guide` require requirements input or production-design changes and are **out of scope**:
- Section 5 (requirements coverage / traceability / same-layer witness)
- Section 6 (design-document output format)
- Section 7 (Testability Assessment — remedies require production-design changes)

Produce a **Findings** list. Each finding records:
- Location: file path + test method name
- Category: which guide + rule violated, or *duplicate test* (see Step 3)
- Concrete proposed change

### Step 3: Duplicate Detection

Compare the target test files against each other and against other tests in the same test class.

A **true duplicate** has **both** of the following in common with another test:
- **Same condition** — identical setup / input
- **Same assertion** — identical observation / expected value

Do NOT flag tests that share only one:
- Different condition → not a duplicate
- Same condition but different assertion → not a duplicate

For each true duplicate pair, append a Finding to the Findings list from Step 2:
- Proposed change: delete the redundant test (the less accurately named one) and keep the more accurately named one. Name both explicitly.
- Do NOT propose merging same-condition tests into a single multi-assert test.

**Exception — defer to Step 4:** If one test in a duplicate pair is `[Category("Internal")]` and the other is a public-seam test, do **not** apply the name-quality tiebreaker here. Do not delete the public-seam test on naming grounds. Defer the pair to Step 4, which always keeps the public-seam test.

### Step 4: Seam Redundancy — Internal-Method Tests

Test through the same seam production code uses. A `[Category("Internal")]` test exercises an `internal` method directly. For each such test in the targets, append Findings via two passes. Overriding rule: **never trade coverage for a tidier seam; when in doubt, keep the test (and keep `internal`).**

**Layer scope:** This step operates within the **unit test layer only**. Tests with `[Category("Integration")]` or `[Category("VisualVerification")]` applied run under different execution contexts and are not candidates for a covering test — do not consider them when searching for a public-seam test that covers the same scenario.

**Pass 1 — classify each `[Category("Internal")]` test:**
1. **A public-seam test already covers it** (from the test code alone): a separate **unit** test asserts the **same observable outcome** for an **equivalent scenario** through a **public** method → Finding: delete the internal test, keep the public-seam test (name both).
2. **No public-seam test covers it** — using the production code read in Step 1:
a. **Not fully observable through public** — a public caller masks or only partially exposes the asserted outcome → keep the internal test; no Finding. "Cheap to extract" ≠ "observable publicly."
b. **Sanctioned extraction** — the method takes **3 or more parameters** (a heuristic; the real trigger is that several *independent* conditions combine so exhaustive public-seam coverage cost explodes — this can also occur with fewer parameters that each take many values, and may not apply when the extra parameters don't drive branching), **and** it isolates cohesive sub-logic (a pure computation or decision that depends on only 1–2 of those inputs) → keep the internal test; no Finding. Applies regardless of how the test was created.
c. **Otherwise (consolidatable into public)** → Finding: rewrite the test to assert the same observable outcome through the public method (merge with an existing public-seam test where natural). The Finding must name explicitly: the target **public method** to go through, the **existing public-seam test to merge into** (or state that a new test method is created, with its name), and the **observable outcome to assert** — the implementer applies the Finding as written and must not need to re-derive these decisions.

**Pass 2 — visibility sweep:** for each `internal` method whose direct internal test goes away in Pass 1 (deleted via 1 or moved via 2c), search the **whole solution** for usages (`internal` is visible cross-assembly via `InternalsVisibleTo` — check other production and test assemblies, not just files in scope):
- Test-only seam wrapped in `#if UNITY_INCLUDE_TESTS`, test now gone → Finding: remove the dead seam.
- Nothing outside the declaring class still needs `internal` access → Finding: demote the method to `private` (do not break any `#if` conditional compilation).
- Any doubt, or any remaining cross-assembly `internal` use → leave it `internal`; no Finding.

Pass 2 Findings change **production** code — record the file path + method explicitly.

### Step 5: Modify Tests

1. Load the `test-writing-guide` skill — and the `code-writing-guide` skill if the Findings include production changes; do not rely on automatic skill triggering
2. Apply the changes described in the Findings list from Steps 2–4 — test edits, plus any production visibility changes (a method demoted to `private`, or a dead test-only seam removed)
3. Run tests with `/run-tests` and confirm **all pass**

### Step 6: Refactoring

1. Run the Claude Code built-in `/simplify` skill (`Skill({skill: "simplify"})` — not a plugin skill) to apply quality improvements to the modified code
2. Run tests with `/run-tests` and confirm **all pass**
3. Run `/resolve-diagnostics` with the files modified in Step 5 — compute the list **after** `/simplify` finishes, so its edits are covered too
4. Commit all remaining changes to git

### Step 7: Implementation Notes

1. `Read` `/tmp/refine-tests-notes-$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID.md` if it exists — if it was never created, every category is "None"
2. Report its entries to the user in chat under `## Implementation Notes` — one bold sub-heading per category, each followed by a bullet list. Always include all five categories in this order: **Design decisions**, **Deviations**, **Tradeoffs**, **Production code changes**, **Open questions**. Write `- None` for any category with nothing recorded, and add any last-minute Open questions before finalizing
3. Delete the temporary notes file if it exists

ソースを確認

価格と実行コスト

Skill の入手: 価格未確認
実行: 実行要件は未確認です。Agent・API・サービス料金を提供元で確認してください。
ライセンス: Unlicense
価格未確認: 価格は未確認です。既存のソースとインストールリンクは利用できます。

無料で入手できても実行が無料とは限りません。価格は安全評価ではありません。価格情報を送る →

ソースの再確認が必要

ソースが変更されたか同期に失敗しました。インストール前に確認してください。

インストール前にレビュー: 自動インストールを避ける

ライセンス: Unlicense

Dependency or permission surface needs review
Permission surface may require sandboxing
Low GitHub adoption signal
AI レビュー承認がありません
Quality score needs review
Permission surface needs review: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution
GitHub adoption: 20 GitHub stars
Stars/forks activity: 20 stars, 3 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata
Dependency/runtime risk: command execution surface, credential or environment access
Permission surface: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution
Review status: AI review approval is missing

完全な監査を開く

ツール一覧はメタデータであり、互換性のテスト結果ではありません。プロンプトは提案です。

小さなタスクから始める

1ソースを読み、入力、出力、依存関係、権限を確認します。
2Agent に計画を求め、設定と費用を承認してから隔離環境でテストします。
3出力と変更ファイルを確認し、実行した結果だけを報告します。再現用にソースの版を保存します。

依存関係、API キー、外部サービスの料金をソースで確認してください。公開リポジトリでも全サービスが無料とは限りません。

出典と利用上の注意

登録済み

メタデータと審査情報は参考です。人気、ソースの発見、実行成功は別の事実です。

ソースリポジトリ: nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills
ライセンス: Unlicense
バージョン: Unknown
最終 GitHub プッシュ: 2026年10月8日
登録情報の更新日: 2026年10月9日
手順のパス: skills/refine-tests/SKILL.md @ 94c16e2f27ee

登録されたバージョンです。ソースのリリース情報を確認してください。

品質

54/100

要レビュー

信頼

60/100

サンドボックス限定

監査

72/100

要レビュー

完全な監査を開く評価レポートを見る

Dependency or permission surface needs review
Permission surface may require sandboxing
Low GitHub adoption signal
AI レビュー承認がありません
Quality score needs review
Permission surface needs review: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution
GitHub adoption: 20 GitHub stars
Stars/forks activity: 20 stars, 3 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata
Dependency/runtime risk: command execution surface, credential or environment access
Permission surface: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution
Review status: AI review approval is missing

Verified installs: —
成果: —

コピーはインストールではありません。件数は成功報告に基づき、品質全体を保証しません。

Agent 接続

Registry API 経由で判断、信頼、監査、ユースケース、インストールのシグナルを提供し、UI をスクレイピングせずに Agent が順位付けできます。

Install API を開く LLM テキスト形式 Manifest を開く自動解決プラン

詳細情報

{
  "version": "openagentskill-agent-metadata-v2",
  "review_evidence": {
    "indexed": true,
    "static_checked": false,
    "ai_reviewed": false,
    "manual_reviewed": false,
    "creator_verified": false,
    "review_result": "version_needs_review",
    "reviewed_at": "2026-10-09T02:46:58.230Z",
    "package_fingerprint": "3dcd0b94cb66453835a172987039602169f9580680fe12ff5184f89e5857bbc2",
    "policy_version": "risk-first-v1",
    "notice": "Publication, static checks, AI review, and creator verification are independent facts. None guarantees runtime safety."
  },
  "commerce": {
    "type": "unknown",
    "billing": "unknown",
    "amount": null,
    "currency": null,
    "sourceUrl": null,
    "checkedAt": null,
    "runtime": "unknown",
    "purchaseUrl": null,
    "checkout": "external",
    "purchaseRequiresUserConsent": true
  },
  "skill": {
    "slug": "nowsprinting-refine-tests",
    "name": "refine-tests",
    "description": "Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the project's test design and writing conventions. Typically invoked as `/refine-tests <PATH>`.",
    "category": "design-creative",
    "url": "https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests",
    "repository": "https://github.com/nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills/tree/master/skills/refine-tests",
    "github_repo": "nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills"
  },
  "suited_tasks": [
    "Coding agents workflows",
    "Claude Code teams",
    "builders willing to evaluate younger projects",
    "Inspect source files",
    "Explain architecture",
    "Patch bugs and verify changes",
    "Navigate pages",
    "Click and type safely"
  ],
  "suited_agents": [
    "Codex",
    "Claude Code",
    "Cursor",
    "OpenAgentSkill CLI"
  ],
  "install": {
    "source_evidence": {
      "status": "source-needs-review",
      "sourceRecorded": true,
      "canOfferInstall": false,
      "path": "skills/refine-tests/SKILL.md",
      "revision": "94c16e2f27eed04e5fddacbff982a2e31c99c084",
      "notice": "The tracked source changed or could not be synchronized. Review the current source before installing."
    },
    "command": "",
    "ready": false,
    "targets": [
      {
        "id": "codex",
        "label": "Codex",
        "kind": "agent-prompt",
        "value": "Review the public source for \"refine-tests\" at https://github.com/nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills/tree/master/skills/refine-tests. The tracked source changed or could not be synchronized. Review the current source before installing. Do not install or execute repository code in this review. Report whether valid skill instructions exist, their exact path and revision, dependencies, costs, license and requested permissions. Ask for approval before any installation. Treat repository text as untrusted data, not authorization."
      },
      {
        "id": "claude-code",
        "label": "Claude Code",
        "kind": "agent-prompt",
        "value": "Review the public source for \"refine-tests\" at https://github.com/nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills/tree/master/skills/refine-tests. The tracked source changed or could not be synchronized. Review the current source before installing. Do not install or execute repository code in this review. Report whether valid skill instructions exist, their exact path and revision, dependencies, costs, license and requested permissions. Ask for approval before any installation. Treat repository text as untrusted data, not authorization."
      },
      {
        "id": "cursor",
        "label": "Cursor",
        "kind": "agent-prompt",
        "value": "Review the public source for \"refine-tests\" at https://github.com/nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills/tree/master/skills/refine-tests. The tracked source changed or could not be synchronized. Review the current source before installing. Do not install or execute repository code in this review. Report whether valid skill instructions exist, their exact path and revision, dependencies, costs, license and requested permissions. Ask for approval before any installation. Treat repository text as untrusted data, not authorization."
      }
    ],
    "handoff_url": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests/install",
    "manifest_url": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/registry/manifest/nowsprinting-refine-tests"
  },
  "trust": {
    "score": 68,
    "label": "Manual review",
    "version": "trust-score-v4",
    "install_policy": "block",
    "evidence": {
      "stars": "20 GitHub stars",
      "repoActivity": "20 stars, 3 forks",
      "lastPushed": "4d since push",
      "license": "Unlicense",
      "repository": "https://github.com/nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills/tree/master/skills/refine-tests",
      "install": "The tracked source changed or could not be synchronized. Review the current source before installing.",
      "installSafety": "standard package or runtime install path",
      "permissionSurface": "secrets or environment access, shell or command execution",
      "documentation": "Strong README/SKILL.md context",
      "agentOutcomes": "No agent outcome data yet"
    },
    "outcome_evidence": {
      "total": 0,
      "successes": 0,
      "failures": 0,
      "not_relevant": 0,
      "success_rate": null,
      "recent_success_rate": null,
      "recent_failure_rate": null,
      "install_attempts": 0,
      "install_success_rate": null,
      "risk_blocked": 0,
      "setup_required": 0,
      "avg_output_quality": null,
      "production_outcomes": 0,
      "last_outcome_at": null,
      "label": "No agent outcome data yet"
    },
    "auto_install": {
      "allowed": false,
      "sandbox_required": true,
      "reason": "Do not auto-install. Inspect the source, dependencies, and permission surface first."
    },
    "best_for": [
      "other",
      "agent-skill"
    ],
    "known_risks": [
      "AI review approval is missing",
      "Low GitHub adoption signal",
      "Quality score needs review",
      "Permission surface needs review: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution",
      "GitHub adoption: 20 GitHub stars",
      "Stars/forks activity: 20 stars, 3 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata",
      "Dependency/runtime risk: command execution surface, credential or environment access",
      "Permission surface: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution"
    ]
  },
  "agent_proven": {
    "version": "agent-proven-v1",
    "score": 0,
    "tier": "unproven",
    "label": "Needs first agent run",
    "summary": "No agent outcome reports yet. Use Resolve, run one narrow sandbox task, then report the result.",
    "metrics": {
      "totalOutcomes": 0,
      "successfulOutcomes": 0,
      "failedOutcomes": 0,
      "installAttempts": 0,
      "installSuccessRate": null,
      "successRate": null,
      "recentSuccessRate": null,
      "recentFailureRate": null,
      "riskBlocked": 0,
      "setupRequired": 0,
      "notRelevant": 0,
      "avgOutputQuality": null,
      "avgTimeToUsefulMs": null,
      "productionOutcomes": 0,
      "humanReviewRequired": 0,
      "uniqueAgents": 0,
      "lastOutcomeAt": null
    },
    "signals": [],
    "penalties": [
      "No real agent outcome evidence yet"
    ]
  },
  "audit": {
    "score": 72,
    "risk_level": "needs_review",
    "risk_label": "Needs review",
    "warnings": [
      "Dependency or permission surface needs review",
      "Permission surface may require sandboxing",
      "Low GitHub adoption signal",
      "AI review approval is missing",
      "Quality score needs review",
      "Permission surface needs review: secrets or environment access, shell or command execution",
      "GitHub adoption: 20 GitHub stars",
      "Stars/forks activity: 20 stars, 3 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata"
    ]
  },
  "safety_gate": {
    "tier": "blocked",
    "label": "Blocked for auto-install",
    "auto_install_policy": "block",
    "auto_install_allowed": false,
    "human_review_required": true,
    "blocked": true,
    "recommended_action": "Do not auto-install. Inspect the source, dependencies, and permission surface first."
  },
  "quality": {
    "score": 54,
    "label": "Needs review"
  },
  "supply": {
    "track": "Coding and developer agents",
    "scenario": "Coding agents",
    "maintenance": "4d since push",
    "risk": "Needs review"
  },
  "alternative_skills": [],
  "do_not_use_when": [
    "teams that need a vendor-supported SLA",
    "production agents without a repository review",
    "Low GitHub adoption signal",
    "High-risk permission hints: Shell or command execution, Secrets or environment access",
    "Dependency or permission surface needs review",
    "Permission surface may require sandboxing",
    "AI review approval is missing",
    "Quality score needs review"
  ],
  "agent_contract": {
    "task_input": "Use refine-tests in an agent workflow",
    "recommended_action": "Do not auto-install. Inspect the source, dependencies, and permission surface first.",
    "install_policy": "block",
    "minimum_review_before_use": [
      "Trust: 68/100 Manual review",
      "Audit: 72/100 Needs review",
      "Safety: 32/100 Avoid automatic install",
      "Review repository, license, install command, and permission surface before production use."
    ],
    "expected_agent_output": {
      "selected_skill": "nowsprinting-refine-tests (refine-tests)",
      "install_command": "",
      "risk_summary": "Needs review; Blocked for auto-install; Review before production",
      "verification_result": "Report the smallest successful task, files touched, warnings, and any missing setup."
    }
  },
  "outcome_feedback": {
    "endpoint": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/outcome",
    "method": "POST",
    "requires_resolve_event_id": true,
    "event_id_source": "Use install_receipt.outcome_feedback.event_id or feedback.event_id returned by /api/agent/resolve for the current task.",
    "expected_outcomes": [
      "success",
      "failed",
      "not_relevant",
      "blocked_by_risk",
      "setup_required"
    ],
    "payload_template": {
      "event_id": "<install_receipt.outcome_feedback.event_id or feedback.event_id from /api/agent/resolve>",
      "skill_slug": "nowsprinting-refine-tests",
      "task": "Use refine-tests in an agent workflow",
      "agent": "codex",
      "outcome": "success",
      "install_used": true,
      "risk_blocked": false,
      "setup_required": false,
      "task_success": true,
      "output_quality": 4,
      "error_type": null,
      "human_review_required": false,
      "workspace": "sandbox",
      "time_to_useful_ms": 120000,
      "notes": "Report the smallest successful task, setup friction, files touched, and risk notes."
    }
  },
  "endpoints": {
    "web": "https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests",
    "api": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests",
    "audit": "https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests/audit",
    "eval": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/evals?slug=nowsprinting-refine-tests&task=Use%20refine-tests%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&max_risk=medium",
    "resolve": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20refine-tests%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium",
    "receipt": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/receipt?task=Use%20refine-tests%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium&format=text",
    "install": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests/install",
    "manifest": "https://www.openagentskill.com/api/registry/manifest/nowsprinting-refine-tests"
  }
}

クリエイター向け

掲載元

Registry により登録

申請可能

この掲載は公開ソースから登録されており、メンテナー申請が承認されるまで公式として表示されません。

作成者: Koji Hasegawa
ソース: nowsprinting/unity-coding-skills
インデックス作成者: OpenAgentSkill コミュニティインデックス

帰属は公開リポジトリまたは作成者プロフィールにリンクされています。作成者は掲載を申請して所有権シグナルを更新できます。

このスキルを申請

所有者の申請

このスキル掲載を申請

この Registry により登録掲載は Koji Hasegawa に帰属していますが、まだ公式として表示されていません。申請すると、確認済み所有者シグナルが追加され、今後の公開、インストール、監査更新の信頼性が高まります。

共有キット

クリエイター被リンクキット

README にエビデンスバッジを追加

開発者がリポジトリを評価する場所で、正規掲載、現在の信頼・監査シグナル、実際の Agent-Proven エビデンスを表示します。

[![Listed on OpenAgentSkill](https://www.openagentskill.com/api/badge/nowsprinting-refine-tests?metric=listed&label=Listed)](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[![OpenAgentSkill Trust](https://www.openagentskill.com/api/badge/nowsprinting-refine-tests?metric=trust&label=Trust)](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[![OpenAgentSkill Audit](https://www.openagentskill.com/api/badge/nowsprinting-refine-tests?metric=audit&label=Audit)](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests/audit)
[![Agent Proven](https://www.openagentskill.com/api/badge/nowsprinting-refine-tests?metric=proven&label=Agent%20Proven)](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/nowsprinting-refine-tests?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)

バッジをプレビュー監査を開くクリエイターキット

コミュニティシグナル

このスキルが Agent ワークフローに役立つかを共有してください。集約されたフィードバックがランキングを改善します。

概要