Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

afrexai-qa-engine(afrexai 质量保证引擎)

afrexai-qa-engine 用于整理文档、README、Markdown 和说明材料,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要把零散信息整理成结构清晰的文档时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

afrexai-qa-engine 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 1,371。

总安装 31,375周安装 1,257GitHub Stars 1下载 10,157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
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

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:afrexai-qa-engine(afrexai 质量保证引擎)
来源仓库:https://github.com/1kalin/afrexai-qa-engine
安装命令:
openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engine
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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engine

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

全面的 QA 系统,用于规划测试策略、分析覆盖范围和自动化管道。适合在 OpenClaw 中需要整理文档或生成测试材料时使用。支持性能、安全和缺陷分类等全方位质量保障流程。安装命令:openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engine,需确认权限范围。

建议核实是否会触发命令执行或文件读写,避免影响现有代码库。

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 OpenClaw;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 openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engine;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

    它需要接触敏感数据,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

afrexai-qa-engine 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engine。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

afrexai-qa-engine 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。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。

afrexai-qa-engine 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

afrexai-qa-engine 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

afrexai-qa-engine 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 31,375 次,近一周安装 1,257 次,下载 10,157 次,GitHub 1 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。

afrexai-qa-engine 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要接触敏感数据,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 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 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
afrexai-qa-engine

afrexai 质量保证引擎 · 本页

31,3751接触敏感数据MIT-0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

QA & Test Engineering Command Center

Complete quality assurance system — from test strategy to automation frameworks, coverage analysis, and release readiness. Works for any stack, any team size.

When to Use

  • Planning test strategy for a new feature or project
  • Writing unit, integration, or E2E tests
  • Reviewing test quality and coverage gaps
  • Setting up test automation and CI/CD quality gates
  • Performance testing and load analysis
  • Security testing checklist
  • Bug triage and defect management
  • Release readiness assessment

Phase 1: Test Strategy

Strategy Brief

Before writing any tests, define the strategy:

# test-strategy.yaml
project: "[name]"
scope: "[feature/module/full product]"
risk_level: high | medium | low
stack:
  language: "[TypeScript/Python/Java/Go]"
  framework: "[React/Express/Django/Spring]"
  test_runner: "[Jest/Vitest/pytest/JUnit/Go test]"
  e2e_tool: "[Playwright/Cypress/Selenium]"

# What are we testing?
test_scope:
  - area: "[e.g., Auth module]"
    risk: high
    test_types: [unit, integration, e2e]
    priority: 1
  - area: "[e.g., Settings page]"
    risk: low
    test_types: [unit]
    priority: 3

# What's NOT in scope (and why)
exclusions:
  - "[e.g., Third-party widget — covered by vendor]"

# Quality targets
targets:
  line_coverage: 80
  branch_coverage: 70
  critical_path_coverage: 100
  max_flaky_rate: 2%
  max_test_duration_unit: 10ms
  max_test_duration_integration: 500ms
  max_test_duration_e2e: 30s

Risk-Based Test Allocation

Not everything needs the same testing depth. Use the risk matrix:

Risk LevelUnit TestsIntegrationE2EManual/Exploratory
Critical (payments, auth, data loss)95%+ coverageFull API coverageHappy + error pathsExploratory session
High (core features, user-facing)85%+ coverageKey integrationsHappy pathSpot check
Medium (secondary features)70%+ coverageCritical paths onlySmoke onlyOn release
Low (admin, internal tools)50%+ coverageNoneNoneNone

Test Pyramid

Follow the pyramid — not the ice cream cone:

         /  E2E  \          ← Few (5-10%) — slow, expensive, brittle
        / Integr. \         ← Some (15-25%) — API contracts, DB queries
       /   Unit    \        ← Many (65-80%) — fast, isolated, cheap

Anti-pattern: Ice cream cone (mostly E2E, few unit tests) = slow CI, flaky builds, expensive maintenance.

Decision rule: Can this be tested at a lower level? → Test it there.


Phase 2: Unit Testing

Anatomy of a Good Unit Test

Every unit test follows AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert):

1. ARRANGE — Set up test data, mocks, state
2. ACT     — Call the function/method under test
3. ASSERT  — Verify the output matches expectations

Unit Test Checklist (per function)

For each function/method, verify:

  • [ ] Happy path — expected input → expected output
  • [ ] Edge cases — empty input, null/undefined, zero, max values
  • [ ] Boundary values — off-by-one, min-1, max+1
  • [ ] Error handling — invalid input → correct error thrown
  • [ ] Return types — correct type, shape, structure
  • [ ] Side effects — does it modify state it shouldn't?
  • [ ] Idempotency — calling twice gives same result?

What to Mock (and What NOT to Mock)

Mock these:

  • External APIs (HTTP calls, third-party services)
  • Database queries (in unit tests only)
  • File system operations
  • Date/time (use fake timers)
  • Random number generators
  • Environment variables

DO NOT mock these:

  • The function under test itself
  • Pure utility functions (test them directly)
  • Data transformations
  • Simple value objects

Mock rule of thumb: If removing the mock would make the test hit the network, file system, or database → mock it. Otherwise → don't.

Test Naming Convention

Use the pattern: [unit] [scenario] [expected result]

Examples:

  • calculateTotal returns 0 for empty cart
  • validateEmail throws for missing @ symbol
  • parseDate handles ISO 8601 with timezone offset

Coverage Analysis

Metrics that matter:

MetricTargetWhy
Line coverage80%+Basic completeness
Branch coverage70%+Catches missed if/else paths
Function coverage90%+Ensures all functions are tested
Critical path coverage100%Business-critical code fully verified

Coverage traps to avoid:

  • 100% line coverage ≠ good tests (assertions matter more than lines hit)
  • Coverage on generated code inflates numbers
  • Trivial getters/setters pad coverage without value
  • Coverage should INCREASE over time, never decrease

Phase 3: Integration Testing

What Integration Tests Cover

Integration tests verify that components work TOGETHER:

  • API endpoint → middleware → handler → database → response
  • Service A calls Service B and handles the response
  • Message queue producer → consumer → side effect
  • Auth flow: login → token → authenticated request

Integration Test Patterns

Pattern 1: API Contract Testing

1. Start test server (or use supertest/httptest)
2. Send HTTP request with specific payload
3. Assert: status code, response body shape, headers
4. Assert: database state changed correctly
5. Assert: side effects triggered (emails, events)

Pattern 2: Database Integration

1. Start test database (SQLite in-memory or test container)
2. Run migrations
3. Seed test data
4. Execute query/operation
5. Assert: data matches expectations
6. Teardown (truncate or rollback transaction)

Pattern 3: External Service

1. Record real API response (VCR/nock/wiremock)
2. Replay recorded response in tests
3. Assert: your code handles the response correctly
4. Also test: timeout, 500 error, malformed response

Integration Test Checklist

  • [ ] Happy path — full flow works end-to-end
  • [ ] Auth — unauthenticated returns 401, wrong role returns 403
  • [ ] Validation — bad payload returns 400 with error details
  • [ ] Not found — missing resource returns 404
  • [ ] Conflict — duplicate create returns 409
  • [ ] Rate limiting — excessive requests return 429
  • [ ] Database constraints — unique violations, foreign keys
  • [ ] Concurrency — two simultaneous writes don't corrupt data
  • [ ] Timeout handling — external service timeout → graceful fallback

Phase 4: End-to-End (E2E) Testing

E2E Strategy

E2E tests verify complete user journeys. They're expensive — be strategic:

Test these E2E:

  • User registration → email verification → first login
  • Purchase flow → payment → confirmation
  • Critical business workflows (the ones that make money)
  • Cross-browser/device smoke tests

DON'T test these E2E:

  • Individual form validations (unit test)
  • API error handling (integration test)
  • Edge cases (lower-level tests)
  • Visual styling (visual regression tools)

E2E Test Template

test_name: "[User journey name]"
preconditions:
  - "[User is logged in]"
  - "[Product exists in catalog]"
steps:
  - action: "Navigate to /products"
    verify: "Product list is visible"
  - action: "Click 'Add to Cart' on Product A"
    verify: "Cart badge shows 1"
  - action: "Click 'Checkout'"
    verify: "Checkout form displayed"
  - action: "Fill payment details and submit"
    verify: "Order confirmation page with order ID"
postconditions:
  - "Order exists in database with status 'paid'"
  - "Confirmation email sent"
max_duration: 30s

Flaky Test Management

Flaky tests are the #1 CI killer. Handle them:

Flaky Test Triage:

  1. Identify — Track test pass rates over 10+ runs
  2. Classify — Why is it flaky?

- Timing/race condition → Add explicit waits, not sleep() - Test data dependency → Isolate test data per run - External service → Mock it or use test container - Browser rendering → Use visibility checks, not delays

  1. Quarantine — Move to @flaky suite, run separately
  2. Fix or delete — Flaky test unfixed for 2 weeks → delete it

Flaky rate target: < 2% of total test runs


Phase 5: Performance Testing

Performance Test Types

TypePurposeWhen
Load testNormal traffic handlingBefore every release
Stress testFind breaking pointQuarterly or before scaling
Spike testSudden traffic burstBefore marketing campaigns
Soak testMemory leaks over timeMonthly or after major changes
Capacity testMax users/throughputPlanning infrastructure

Performance Test Plan

test_name: "[API/Page] Load Test"
target: "[URL or endpoint]"
baseline:
  p50_response: "[current p50 ms]"
  p95_response: "[current p95 ms]"
  p99_response: "[current p99 ms]"
  error_rate: "[current %]"

scenarios:
  - name: "Normal load"
    vus: 50          # virtual users
    duration: 5m
    ramp_up: 30s
    thresholds:
      p95_response: "< 500ms"
      error_rate: "< 1%"

  - name: "Peak load"
    vus: 200
    duration: 10m
    ramp_up: 1m
    thresholds:
      p95_response: "< 2000ms"
      error_rate: "< 5%"

  - name: "Stress test"
    vus: 500
    duration: 5m
    ramp_up: 2m
    # Find the breaking point — no thresholds, observe

Performance Metrics Dashboard

Track these per endpoint:

MetricGreenYellowRed
p50 response< 200ms200-500ms> 500ms
p95 response< 500ms500ms-2s> 2s
p99 response< 1s1-5s> 5s
Error rate< 0.1%0.1-1%> 1%
Throughput> baseline80-100% baseline< 80%
CPU usage< 60%60-80%> 80%
Memory usage< 70%70-85%> 85%
DB query time< 50ms avg50-200ms> 200ms

Common Performance Fixes

SymptomLikely CauseFix
Slow API responseN+1 queriesBatch/join queries
Memory climbingObject retentionProfile heap, fix leaks
Timeout spikesConnection pool exhaustionIncrease pool, add queuing
Slow page loadLarge bundleCode split, lazy load
DB bottleneckMissing indexAdd index on WHERE/JOIN columns
High CPUSynchronous computeMove to worker/queue

Phase 6: Security Testing

Security Test Checklist

Run through these for every feature/release:

Authentication & Authorization:

  • [ ] Passwords hashed with bcrypt/argon2 (not MD5/SHA1)
  • [ ] Session tokens are random, sufficient length (128+ bits)
  • [ ] JWT tokens have short expiry (15 min access, 7 day refresh)
  • [ ] Failed login rate limiting (5 attempts → lockout)
  • [ ] Password reset tokens expire (1 hour max)
  • [ ] Role-based access enforced server-side (not just UI)
  • [ ] Can't access other users' data by changing IDs in URL

Input Validation:

  • [ ] SQL injection — parameterized queries everywhere
  • [ ] XSS — output encoding, CSP headers
  • [ ] CSRF — tokens on state-changing requests
  • [ ] Path traversal — validate file paths, no ../
  • [ ] Command injection — never pass user input to shell
  • [ ] File upload — validate type, size, scan for malware
  • [ ] JSON/XML parsing — depth limits, entity expansion disabled

Data Protection:

  • [ ] HTTPS everywhere (HSTS header)
  • [ ] Sensitive data encrypted at rest
  • [ ] PII not logged (mask in log output)
  • [ ] API keys not in client-side code
  • [ ] CORS configured correctly (not *)
  • [ ] Security headers set (X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)

Infrastructure:

  • [ ] Dependencies scanned for CVEs (npm audit / pip audit)
  • [ ] Docker images scanned (Trivy/Snyk)
  • [ ] Secrets not in code/env files (use vault)
  • [ ] Error messages don't leak internals
  • [ ] Admin endpoints behind VPN/IP allowlist

OWASP Top 10 Quick Reference

#VulnerabilityTest For
A01Broken Access ControlAccess other users' resources, bypass role checks
A02Cryptographic FailuresWeak hashing, plaintext secrets, expired certs
A03InjectionSQL, XSS, command, LDAP injection
A04Insecure DesignBusiness logic flaws, missing rate limits
A05Security MisconfigurationDefault creds, verbose errors, open ports
A06Vulnerable ComponentsOutdated deps with known CVEs
A07Authentication FailuresBrute force, weak passwords, session fixation
A08Data Integrity FailuresUnsigned updates, CI/CD pipeline injection
A09Logging FailuresMissing audit logs, no alerting on breaches
A10SSRFInternal network access via user-controlled URLs

Phase 7: Bug Triage & Defect Management

Bug Report Template

bug_id: "[auto or manual]"
title: "[Short description of the bug]"
severity: P0-critical | P1-high | P2-medium | P3-low
reporter: "[name]"
date: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"

environment:
  os: "[OS + version]"
  browser: "[Browser + version]"
  app_version: "[version/commit]"
  
steps_to_reproduce:
  1. "[Step 1]"
  2. "[Step 2]"
  3. "[Step 3]"

expected_result: "[What should happen]"
actual_result: "[What actually happens]"
frequency: "always | intermittent | once"
screenshots: "[links]"
logs: "[relevant log output]"

Severity Classification

LevelDefinitionSLAExample
P0 CriticalSystem down, data loss, security breachFix in 4 hoursPayment processing broken
P1 HighMajor feature broken, no workaroundFix in 24 hoursUsers can't login
P2 MediumFeature broken with workaroundFix this sprintSearch returns wrong results sometimes
P3 LowMinor issue, cosmeticFix when convenientButton alignment off by 2px

Bug Triage Process (Weekly)

1. Review all new bugs (unassigned)
2. For each bug:
   a. Reproduce — can you trigger it?
   b. Classify severity (P0-P3)
   c. Estimate fix effort (S/M/L)
   d. Assign to owner + sprint
   e. Link to related bugs/stories
3. Review P0/P1 bugs from last week — are they fixed?
4. Close bugs that can't be reproduced (after 2 attempts)
5. Update metrics dashboard

Bug Metrics Dashboard

Track weekly:

MetricFormulaTarget
Bug escape rateBugs found in prod / total bugs< 10%
Mean time to fix (P0)Avg hours from report to deploy< 8 hours
Mean time to fix (P1)Avg hours from report to deploy< 48 hours
Bug reopen rateReopened bugs / closed bugs< 5%
Test escape analysisBugs that SHOULD have been caughtTrack & reduce
Open bug countTotal open by severityTrending down

Phase 8: Release Readiness

Release Checklist

Before shipping to production:

Code Quality:

  • [ ] All unit tests passing
  • [ ] All integration tests passing
  • [ ] E2E smoke suite passing
  • [ ] No new lint warnings/errors
  • [ ] Code reviewed and approved
  • [ ] No known P0/P1 bugs open for this release

Coverage & Quality Gates:

  • [ ] Line coverage ≥ target (80%)
  • [ ] Branch coverage ≥ target (70%)
  • [ ] No coverage decrease from last release
  • [ ] Mutation testing score ≥ 60% (if applicable)

Performance:

  • [ ] Load test passed (within thresholds)
  • [ ] No performance regressions vs baseline
  • [ ] Bundle size within budget

Security:

  • [ ] Dependency audit clean (no critical/high CVEs)
  • [ ] Security checklist completed
  • [ ] Secrets rotated if needed

Operational Readiness:

  • [ ] Monitoring/alerts configured for new features
  • [ ] Rollback plan documented
  • [ ] Feature flags in place for risky changes
  • [ ] Database migration tested and reversible
  • [ ] Runbook updated

Release Readiness Score

Score 0-100 across 5 dimensions:

DimensionWeightScoring
Test coverage25%100 if targets met, -10 per gap area
Bug status25%100 if 0 P0/P1, -20 per open P0, -10 per P1
Performance20%100 if all green, -15 per yellow, -30 per red
Security20%100 if clean, -25 per critical, -15 per high
Operational10%100 if checklist complete, -20 per missing item

Ship threshold: ≥ 80 overall, no dimension below 60


Phase 9: CI/CD Quality Gates

Pipeline Quality Gates

Configure these gates in your CI pipeline:

# Quality gate configuration
gates:
  - name: "Lint"
    stage: pre-commit
    command: "npm run lint"
    blocking: true
    
  - name: "Unit Tests"
    stage: commit
    command: "npm test -- --coverage"
    blocking: true
    thresholds:
      pass_rate: 100%
      coverage_line: 80%
      coverage_branch: 70%
      
  - name: "Integration Tests"
    stage: merge
    command: "npm run test:integration"
    blocking: true
    thresholds:
      pass_rate: 100%
      
  - name: "Security Scan"
    stage: merge
    command: "npm audit --audit-level=high"
    blocking: true
    
  - name: "E2E Smoke"
    stage: staging
    command: "npm run test:e2e:smoke"
    blocking: true
    thresholds:
      pass_rate: 100%
      
  - name: "Performance"
    stage: staging
    command: "npm run test:perf"
    blocking: false  # Alert only
    thresholds:
      p95_regression: 20%

Test Automation Maturity Model

Rate your team 1-5:

LevelDescriptionCharacteristics
1 — ManualAll testing is manualNo automation, long release cycles
2 — ReactiveSome unit tests, no CITests written after bugs, not before
3 — StructuredTest pyramid, CI pipelineUnit + integration, automated on push
4 — ProactiveFull automation, quality gatesE2E + perf + security in pipeline, TDD
5 — OptimizedSelf-healing, predictiveFlaky auto-quarantine, AI-assisted testing, continuous deployment

Phase 10: Test Maintenance

Weekly Test Health Review

review_date: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"

metrics:
  total_tests: 0
  pass_rate_7d: "0%"
  flaky_tests: 0
  flaky_rate: "0%"
  avg_suite_duration: "0s"
  coverage_line: "0%"
  coverage_branch: "0%"
  
actions:
  quarantined: []     # Tests moved to flaky suite
  deleted: []         # Tests removed (obsolete/unfixable)
  fixed: []           # Flaky tests fixed this week
  added: []           # New tests added
  
trends:
  coverage_delta: "+0%"     # vs last week
  flaky_delta: "+0"         # vs last week
  duration_delta: "+0s"     # vs last week
  
notes: ""

Test Maintenance Rules

  1. No commented-out tests — delete or fix, never comment
  2. No skipped tests > 2 weeks — fix or remove
  3. No test duplication — each behavior tested once at the right level
  4. Test names must be readable — someone new should understand what broke
  5. Shared test utilities — common setup in fixtures/factories, not copy-pasted
  6. Test data isolation — each test creates its own data, cleans up after
  7. No magic numbers — use named constants in assertions
  8. Assertion messages — custom messages on complex assertions

Common Test Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternProblemFix
Sleeping testssleep(2000) instead of waitingUse explicit waits/polling
Test interdependenceTest B relies on Test A's stateIsolate — each test sets up its own state
Assertionless testsTest runs code but doesn't assertAdd meaningful assertions
Brittle selectorsCSS selectors that break on redesignUse data-testid or aria roles
God testOne test verifying 20 thingsSplit into focused tests
Mock overloadEverything mocked, nothing real testedOnly mock external boundaries
Hardcoded dataTests break when seed data changesUse factories/builders
Ignoring test output"It passed, ship it"Review WHY it passed — is the assertion meaningful?

Quick Reference: Natural Language Commands

Tell the agent:

  • "Create test strategy for [feature]" → Generates strategy brief
  • "Write unit tests for [function/file]" → AAA-structured tests with edge cases
  • "Review test coverage for [module]" → Gap analysis + recommendations
  • "Write integration tests for [API endpoint]" → Full HTTP test suite
  • "Plan E2E tests for [user journey]" → E2E test template
  • "Run security checklist for [feature]" → OWASP-based security review
  • "Triage these bugs: [list]" → Severity classification + assignment
  • "Release readiness check" → Full readiness score + blockers
  • "Performance test plan for [endpoint]" → Load/stress test configuration
  • "Fix flaky test [name]" → Root cause analysis + fix strategy

平台分布

OpenClaw

84.45%
按下载量换算8,578

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

未展示

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

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。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