skill integration tester

Name: skill integration tester
Author: tradermonty

by tradermonty·3mo ago

Validate multi-skill workflows defined in CLAUDE.md by checking skill existence, inter-skill data contracts (JSON schem…

Testing & DebuggingClaude CodeMedium risk · 中风险open source · 开源

Before you install安装前须知

✓No special access needs declared未声明特殊权限需求

Editor's verdict· 编辑结论

Validate multi-skill workflows defined in CLAUDE.md by checking skill existence, inter-skill data contracts (JSON schema compatibility), file naming conventions, and handoff integrity. Use when adding new workflows, modifying skill outputs, or verifying pipeline health before re…
— Editorial team · 编辑团队

Install via Skills CLI

Use npx skills add to install this skill into the selected agent. Phase 0 commands are generated from source rules, not verified.

Codex

npx skills add https://github.com/tradermonty/claude-trading-skills/blob/main/skills/skill-integration-tester/SKILL.md -g -a codex -y

Drop `-g` to install project-locally

✓

Best for适合什么场景

Step-by-step skill existence checks
Handoff contract validation (PASS / FAIL / N/A)
File naming convention violations

✗

Not for不适合什么场景

Workflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.需要比当前目录条目更严格人工复核的工作流。

vs alternativesvs 其他选择

Full compare table完整对比表 →

#1QA Loop

Open the product, try the flow, fix what breaks, repeat.

★ 4.9·15k stars

diff · 差异Best browser QA pick when you need evidence to leave a paper trail. Each run produces screenshots, console diffs, and a reproducible action log — much harder for stakeholders to wave off than "I tested it locally." Works well as a pre-merge gate and for filing bugs with repro steps attached. Not for unit tests, and not for authenticated production sessions where the screenshot itself becomes a data risk.

#2GStack Investigate

No fixes until the root cause is real.

★ 4.8·131k stars

diff · 差异Best when the bug lives inside the code itself, not in operational state. Same "no fixes until the root cause is real" discipline as incident-investigate, but biased toward static code investigation: reads suspect modules, builds a hypothesis tree, asks for a failing test or repro before proposing a change. Strongest on flaky tests and intermittent failures where shallow patches make things worse. For ops-side incidents (logs, traffic, infra), incident-investigate fits better.

#3GStack QA

Open the app, test the flow, fix what breaks.

★ 4.8·131k stars

diff · 差异Best when browser QA needs to close the loop — find the bug, propose the fix, verify the fix, leave evidence. Where qa-loop emphasizes evidence trails for stakeholder reporting, gstack-qa emphasizes shipping the fix in the same session. Strongest on frontend refactors and visual regressions. Same screenshot data-risk caveat as qa-loop: don't point it at authenticated production sessions where the screenshot itself becomes a leak.

Side-by-side compare维度对比

Key differences with same-lane alternatives

	this skill · 当前skill integration tester	QA Loop	GStack Investigate	GStack QA
Rating · 评分	—	4.9	4.8	4.8
Stars · 星标	1.3k	15k	131k	131k
Risk · 风险	Medium risk · 中风险	Medium risk · 中风险	Low risk · 低风险	Medium risk · 中风险
Best for · 最适合	Step-by-step skill existence checks	Browser smoke tests	No fixes until the root cause is real.	Open the app, test the flow, fix what breaks.
Not for · 不适合	Workflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.	Pure unit testing	Workflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.	Workflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.

Audit notes审计备注

not individually audited · 未独立审计

Source源码open on GitHub · 公开✓

Author作者community · 社区!

Network网络访问not individually audited · 未独立审计!

Filesystem文件写入not individually audited · 未独立审计!

Dependencies依赖not individually audited · 未独立审计!

Telemetry遥测none · 无✓