Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 待分类

accelint-ac-to-playwright(accelint AC TO Playwright 测试)

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。它适合让 Agent 编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。使用时需要确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为了通过测试而改坏真实逻辑;涉及浏览器或外部服务时,应区分本地模拟、测试环境和生产环境。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 是待分类类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在待分类类的 11,209 个 Skill 里排第 2,520。

总安装 1,536周安装 64GitHub Stars 10下载 512核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:accelint-ac-to-playwright(accelint AC TO Playwright 测试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/gohypergiant/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/accelint-ac-to-playwright
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/gohypergiant/agent-skills --skill accelint-ac-to-playwright
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/gohypergiant/agent-skills --skill accelint-ac-to-playwright

这个 Skill 是做什么的

这个 Skill 的分类还没最终确定,用法以来源仓库的说明为准。

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证,支持编写单元测试或端到端测试。适用于根据失败日志定位问题,或生成测试计划,需结合项目测试框架使用。通过加载 AC 文件和测试钩子文档,自动处理验收准则到测试的转换。使用时需区分本地模拟与生产环境,避免修改真实逻辑,确保测试准确性。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 属于待分类类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/accelint-ac-to-playwright

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/gohypergiant/agent-skills --skill accelint-ac-…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

accelint-ac-to-playwright 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/gohypergiant/agent-skills --skill accelint-ac-to-playwri…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,536 次,近一周安装 64 次,下载 512 次,GitHub 10 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

accelint-ac-to-playwright 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理待分类类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

待分类类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
infsh-cli

infsh CLI · Codex、Claude

4,374,576382权限未标注未明确未收录
ai-video-generation

AI 视频生成 · Codex、Claude

4,313,376382调用外部服务未明确有提醒
lark-openapi-explorer

云雀 OpenAPI 浏览器 · Codex、Claude

2,064,1209,011需要联网未明确有提醒
lark-workflow-standup-report

Lark 工作流程站立报告 · Codex、Claude

2,041,6328,978需要联网未明确通过
use-my-browser

使用我的浏览器 · Codex、Claude

1,848,49140操作浏览器未明确未通过
accelint-ac-to-playwright

accelint AC TO Playwright 测试 · 本页

1,53610操作浏览器未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

AC To Playwright

MANDATORY - READ ENTIRE FILE: Before processing ANY acceptance criteria, you MUST read references/acceptance-criteria.md (~175 lines) completely from start to finish. NEVER set any range limits when reading this file. It is the authoritative source for AC writing rules and mappings.

Note on test-hooks.md: Load references/test-hooks.md when converting AC → JSON plans or when running Assessment mode — it contains the controlled vocabulary for area/component/intent target naming patterns. Do NOT load when converting plans → tests (translation script handles this automatically).

Intent Detection

The skill supports two modes based on user phrasing:

Assessment mode (triggers on):

  • "review these AC"
  • "evaluate these AC"
  • "check if these AC are ready"
  • "can these AC be converted as-is"
  • "are these AC automation-ready"
  • "assess these acceptance criteria"

Full conversion mode (triggers on):

  • "convert these AC"
  • "generate tests from AC"
  • "turn AC into Playwright tests"
  • "create test automation"

Assessment mode analyzes AC text only (no artifact generation). Full conversion mode generates plans and tests.

Assessment Workflow

  1. Detect intent: User asks to review/evaluate/assess/check AC readiness.
  2. Prepare for the task:
  • Read references/acceptance-criteria.md and references/test-hooks.md.
  • Work one input file at a time.
  1. Analyze AC text against all conversion requirements:

- Structure & Format: - Bullet format: proper - markers for each AC - Gherkin format: valid Feature/Scenario/Examples/Given/When/Then/tags structure - Step ordering: all Givens → all Whens → all Thens (no mixing within a scenario) - Targets (semantic validation): - Every action specifies a target - Target meets the area/component/intent pattern (all three parts present) - Area matches controlled vocabulary from test-hooks.md (nav, header, footer, form, drawer, card, toast, modal, table, page, area) - Component matches controlled vocabulary (button, link, input, dropdown, checkbox, radio, text, div, component) - Intent is present - Actions: - Verbs are recognized and mappable to Playwright actions (click, fill, select, drag) - No vague verbs (interact, use, hover without x/y coordinates) - Fill/select actions have quoted literal values (not "a valid email" or "any value") - Expected Outcomes: - Explicitly stated (not implied or inferred) - Measurable (specific text content, element, or state) - Visibility changes use trigger words (appears, shows, hides, visible, see)

  1. Report results:

- If issues found: Report "❌ AC are not conversion-ready" with detailed issue list (see output format below) - If no issues: Report "✓ AC are conversion-ready" with validated checklist - Do NOT generate any files (no JSON plans, no test files) - Report results for all input files - do not stop Assessment mode after a single failure to ensure all issues are surfaced to the user at once.

Conversion Workflow

  1. Detect intent: User asks to generate/convert/write tests from AC files.
  2. Run Assessment mode:
  • Run Assessment mode against all input files and report pass/fail result.
  • If Assessment mode reported any failures across all files, STOP. Do not proceed with the rest of Conversion mode.
  1. Prepare for the task:
  • Require the user to explicitly provide output directories for plans, tests, and summaries before writing any files.
  • Read references/acceptance-criteria.md.
  • Work one input file at a time. Do not parallelize so that errors in one file's workflow do not affect other files' workflows.
  • Derive suite name, test names, startUrl, steps, targets, tags, and source metadata per the rules below.
  1. JSON test plan:
  • Build a JSON test plan that conforms to references/plan-schema.ts.
  • Validate the test plan and report results.
  • If validation failed, stop. Do not write the plan. Skip the rest of these steps for the current input file and move on to the next input file.
  • If validation passed, write the plan to the user-specified output directory: <plans-output-dir>/<suite-slug>.json.
  1. Translate the plan to tests:
  • Once the plan file is written, translate the plan with scripts/translate-plan-to-tests.ts.
  • Write the test suite file to the user-specified output directory: <tests-output-dir>/<suite-slug>.spec.ts.
  • Append a summary entry to the batch JSON file in the user-specified summary directory (one batch file per run).
  1. Next steps:
  • Work on the next input file, if any remain.
  • After all files are processed, ask the user if they would like a Playwright config template. If yes, copy skills/accelint-ac-to-playwright/assets/templates/playwright.config.ts into the user‑specified summaries location.

Recognition Patterns

Before processing AC, identify these quality signals:

Good AC (can process directly):

CheckQuestionIf NO → Action
TargetsDoes every action specify area.component.intent?Ask user to clarify which specific element
ValuesAre all fill/select values quoted literals?Ask user for exact values to use
OutcomesAre expectations measurable (specific text/element/state)?Ask user what exactly to verify

Bad patterns (ask the user questions):

  • "interact with" (and other similar language) → too vague, agent can't map to Playwright action
  • Dropdown: "select the first option" → fails, needs exact text
  • Always quote exact literals: 'test@example.com' not "a valid email"

The above table directs you to ask for clarifications because guessing creates tests that fail unpredictably.

Naming Transformations

Input to output mapping: One AC file → one suite → one plan file (<plans-dir>/<suite-slug>.json) → one test file

  • .md bullet-style: each - bullet = one test
  • .feature Gherkin: each Scenario = one test; each Examples row in Scenario Outline = one test
InputSuite NameTest NameOutput Slug
.featureFeature: text → lowercase → capitalize firstScenario text (lowercase, ~64 char limit) + (params) for Scenario Outlinessuite name → lowercase, spaces to dashes
.mdfilename → lowercase → dashes to spaces → capitalize firstSummarize bullet intent (present tense, lowercase, ~64 char)suite name → lowercase, spaces to dashes

Scenario Outline parameters: Use shortest left-to-right column combo that uniquely identifies each row, joined with /.

Example:

Examples:
  | username | password | message       |
  | user1    | pass1    | Welcome user1 |
  | user2    | pass2    | Welcome user2 |

Appends (user1/pass1) and (user2/pass2) respectively.

Tags (Gherkin only)

  • Feature-level tags -> suite tags.
  • Scenario-level tags -> test tags.
  • Do not include suite tags in test tags; drop duplicates at the test level.
  • If no test tags remain, omit tags field for that test.
  • Tag values include the leading '@'.

Source metadata

  • Always include a source object at suite level.
  • If AC file is inside a git repo: repo = repo name (folder containing .git), path = repo-relative path.
  • If AC file is not inside a git repo: repo = external, path = file basename only.
  • Do not store absolute paths.

Output Rules

Suite-level fields

  • Top-level field order: suiteName, tags (if any), source, tests.

Test-level fields

  • Start URL: always default to '/' unless the user provides an explicit starting page in a given AC per references/acceptance-criteria.md.
  • Steps: use only schema actions (but do not use goto) and preserve the order in the bullet text or in the Gherkin steps.

- Keyboard modifier combinations: When AC describes pressing a key combination (e.g., "press Shift+g", "press Control+Enter"), translate it into a three-step sequence: 1. keyDown with the modifier key (e.g., Shift, Control, or app-specific modifier a) 2. press with the non-modifier key (e.g., g, Enter) 3. keyUp with the same modifier key - Valid modifiers for keyDown/keyUp: Shift, Control, a (app-specific) - The press action only accepts single unmodified keys and should never receive combination syntax like Shift+g

  • Assertions:

- If navigation is triggered, add expectUrl using the Start URL mapping. - For visibility changes (e.g., visible/appears/shows/hides and similar wording), add expectNotVisible immediately before the action and expectVisible immediately after (or vice versa as appropriate). - Only add expectText / expectVisible / expectNotVisible when the AC explicitly names text or visibility. - Do not invent assertions. NEVER infer unstated information. Required fields that MUST be explicit (not inferred): - target: Must include area + component + intent - value: Must be quoted literal for fills - expected outcomes: Must include verifiable element/text

Resources

  • scripts/plan-schema.ts — schema and validation logic to consult when generating plans.
  • scripts/cli/validate-plan.ts — validator script for JSON plans (run via npx validate-plan after build).
  • scripts/translate-plan-to-tests.ts — converts a validated plan to a Playwright spec.
  • scripts/cli/generate-tests.ts — CLI wrapper for reading, validating, and writing spec files.

Validation and Retry Protocol

Use npx validate-plan path/to/plan.json to validate a plan against references/plan-schema.ts (after build).

Maximum attempts: 2 total (initial + 1 correction)

  1. Attempt 1: Generate JSON → validate
  • Pass → proceed to write file
  • Fail → go to Attempt 2
  1. Attempt 2: Read validation error → fix ONE specific issue → re-validate
  • Pass → proceed to write file
  • Fail → STOP, report error to user

NEVER:

  • Make multiple changes at once (fix one thing, validate, repeat)
  • Retry by rephrasing same JSON differently
  • Guess at schema requirements if error is unclear

Error Recovery

Error TypeDiagnostic QuestionCommon CausesFix Strategy
Schema validation failsWhat field does error message name?Wrong field order, missing required field, extra field not in schema, incorrect field typeCheck schema for exact field names and order; compare your JSON structure to schema requirements
Target naming invalidDoes target match area.component.intent?Wrong pattern structure, invalid keywords from controlled lists, missing dotsReview test-hooks.md for controlled vocabulary (area: nav/header/footer/etc, component: button/link/input/etc); use fallback keywords (last in each list) if AC term doesn't match
Translation script errorsWhich action/assertion caused failure?Unsupported action type, malformed target selector, missing required field in stepVerify action is in allowed list (click/fill/select); check target has all three parts; ensure step has target and any required fields (e.g., fill needs value)
Validation passes but tests failDo test hooks match actual page elements?Target selectors don't match DOM, wrong start URL, timing issuesAsk user to verify page structure matches expected targets; check if startUrl needs adjustment; consider if dynamic content needs wait conditions
Multiple validation failures after fixesDid first fix break something else?Making multiple speculative changes, misunderstanding schema requirementsStop after 2 attempts; report specific schema violations to user; ask if AC has ambiguities or if schema has changed

NEVER Do

  • NEVER generate artifacts in assessment mode — when the user asks to review/evaluate/assess AC, analyze the AC text only and provide the formatted report. Do not generate JSON plans or test files. Do not assume they want full conversion.
  • NEVER skip controlled vocabulary checks in assessment — verify that area and component keywords in targets match the lists in test-hooks.md.
  • NEVER use goto action in steps — tests start at startUrl, navigation happens via clicks or fills that trigger page changes. Using goto mid-test breaks Playwright's navigation lifecycle and causes race conditions where assertions run before the page is ready, leading to flaky tests that pass locally but fail in CI.
  • NEVER use doubleClick for element interactions — doubleClick is only for coordinate-based double-clicks (x,y positions). For double-clicking elements, use the element-based click action twice in sequence. Only use doubleClick when AC explicitly specifies coordinates.
  • NEVER use mouseClick for element interactions — mouseClick is only for coordinate-based clicks (x,y positions). For clicking elements, always use click with test IDs. Only use mouseClick when AC explicitly specifies coordinates.
  • NEVER use mouseMove without a follow-up action — mouseMove positions the cursor but doesn't interact with anything. It should only be used before actions like mouseDown, mouseUp, mouseClick, or when AC explicitly requires moving to specific coordinates before other mouse operations.
  • NEVER use mouseDown or mouseUp without mouseMove first — these actions press/release buttons at the current cursor position. Always use mouseMove to position the cursor before mouseDown/mouseUp, otherwise the position is unpredictable.
  • NEVER invent assertions — only add expectText, expectVisible, expectNotVisible when AC explicitly states expected outcomes (exception: expectUrl for navigation, visibility pairs for show/hide actions)
  • NEVER store absolute file paths in source metadata — the expected convention is to use repo-relative paths for git repos, basename only for external files
  • NEVER assume targets or values — if AC says "click the button" without identifying which button, ask for clarification rather than guessing. Generic targets like button.generic bypass the controlled vocabulary system and create tests that break because they match multiple elements unpredictably.
  • NEVER skip validation — even if JSON looks correct, always run npx validate-plan before writing files to catch errors and reduce incorrect artifact cleanup
  • NEVER reuse existing plans or tests — this has caused problems in the past with changes being lost, so always regenerate all steps from AC source to ensure accuracy
  • NEVER write a plan file without validating first — validation catches structural errors; writing invalid plans creates broken artifacts requiring manual cleanup
  • NEVER process multiple steps of one file in parallel — complete the full pipeline (AC → plan → test → summary) for each file before moving to the next to avoid partial artifacts and state confusion
  • NEVER take shortcuts. - agents have gone off the rails when trying to define their own shortcuts, so when triggered you must always run the full workflow.

Assessment mode output format

When validation fails, report issues in this structure:

❌ AC are not conversion-ready. Issues found:

File: [filename]
1. [Line/Scenario reference]: [Specific issue]
   - Problem: [What's wrong]
   - Example: [Quote from AC]
   - Fix: [What needs to change]

File: [filename]
2. [Next issue...]

Example output:

❌ AC are not conversion-ready. Issues found:

File: form-actions.feature
1. Scenario "User submits form": Unknown action verb
   - Problem: "hovers" is not a recognized Playwright action
   - Example: "the user hovers over the tooltip"
   - Fix: Use a supported action (click, fill, select) or clarify the intent

File: login-flow.feature
2. Scenario "User logs in": Missing target intent
   - Problem: Test hook selector incomplete (button.form instead of button.form.submit)
   - Example: "clicks the button on the form"
   - Fix: Specify intent: "clicks the Submit button on the form"

When assessment passes:

✓ AC are conversion-ready

Validated ([X] AC in [Y] files):
- Structure: Proper format (bullets or Gherkin) with correct step ordering
- Targets: All meet the area/component/intent pattern with controlled vocabulary
- Actions: All verbs recognized (click/fill/select) with input values where required
- Expected outcomes: All explicitly stated and measurable
- Vocabulary: All areas/components match test-hooks.md keywords

These AC can be converted without modification.

Files analyzed:
[filename 1]
[filename 2]
...

平台分布

Codex

36.85%
按下载量换算189

Claude

29.65%
按下载量换算152

Cursor

19.38%
按下载量换算99

Gemini CLI

9.16%
按下载量换算47

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills