Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

go-testing-code-review(去测试代码审查)

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。

go-testing-code-review 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 19,000。

总安装 5,816周安装 233GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 1,883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
2.3.1

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:go-testing-code-review(去测试代码审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/anderskev/go-testing-code-review
安装命令:
openclaw skills install go-testing-code-review
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 go-testing-code-review

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

检查 Go 测试代码以了解正确的表驱动测试、断言和覆盖模式。在查看 *_test.go 文件时使用。

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 go-testing-code-review;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

    它需要需要联网,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

go-testing-code-review 怎么安装?

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

go-testing-code-review 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。

go-testing-code-review 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

go-testing-code-review 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。

go-testing-code-review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 5,816 次,近一周安装 233 次,下载 1,883 次。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。

go-testing-code-review 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

  • 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。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、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

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
go-testing-code-review

去测试代码审查 · 本页

5,816—需要联网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

name
go-testing-code-review
description
Reviews Go test code for proper table-driven tests, assertions, and coverage patterns. Use when reviewing *_test.go files.

Go Testing Code Review

Review Workflow

Follow this sequence in order. Do not emit findings until every Pass below is satisfied.

  1. Baseline go.mod — Open go.mod for the module under review and read the go directive.

Pass: You can state the exact go X.YY value (in the review preamble or working notes). Apply version-gated advice only when it matches this baseline (e.g. fuzz tests Go 1.18+, loop-variable capture pre-Go 1.22).

  1. Read surrounding tests — For each *_test.go (or benchmark/fuzz file) in scope, read full test functions and any table struct{...} / helpers they use, not only the diff hunk.

Pass: At least one full func Test... / func Benchmark... / func Fuzz... (or helper it calls) containing the change was read per in-scope file.

  1. Scope the checklist — Decide which Review Checklist rows apply (table-driven structure, parallelism, HTTP, golden files, mocks). Open references/structure.md and/or references/mocking.md for those topics; skip rows N/A to the diff with a one-line reason (e.g. “no t.Parallel in change”).

Pass: The review (or working notes) lists which checklist themes you applied, or marks themes N/A with a diff-tied reason.

  1. Pre-report verification — Load and follow review-verification-protocol.

Pass: The protocol’s Pre-Report Verification Checklist is satisfied for each finding you will report (actual test code read, surrounding context checked, “wrong” vs “different style” distinguished, etc.).

Hard gates (same sequence, shorter)

StepObjective pass condition
1go X.YY from go.mod is recorded before version-specific test advice.
2Full enclosing test (or helper it uses) read per in-scope test file, not diff-only.
3In-scope checklist themes listed or N/A with diff-tied reason; references opened as needed.
4review-verification-protocol completed for every reported issue.

Output Format

Report findings as:

[FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
Severity: Critical | Major | Minor | Informational
Description of the issue and why it matters.

Quick Reference

Issue TypeReference
Test structure, namingreferences/structure.md
Mocking, interfacesreferences/mocking.md

Review Checklist

  • [ ] Tests are table-driven with clear case names
  • [ ] Subtests use t.Run for parallel execution
  • [ ] Test names describe behavior, not implementation
  • [ ] Errors include got/want with descriptive message
  • [ ] Cleanup registered with t.Cleanup
  • [ ] Parallel tests don't share mutable state
  • [ ] Mocks use interfaces defined in test file
  • [ ] Coverage includes edge cases and error paths
  • [ ] Performance-critical functions have Benchmark* tests
  • [ ] Input parsers/validators have Fuzz* tests (Go 1.18+)
  • [ ] HTTP handlers tested with httptest.NewRequest/httptest.NewRecorder
  • [ ] Golden file tests use testdata/*.golden pattern with -update flag

Critical Patterns

Table-Driven Tests

// BAD - repetitive
func TestAdd(t *testing.T) {
    if Add(1, 2) != 3 {
        t.Error("wrong")
    }
    if Add(0, 0) != 0 {
        t.Error("wrong")
    }
}

// GOOD
func TestAdd(t *testing.T) {
    tests := []struct {
        name     string
        a, b     int
        want     int
    }{
        {"positive numbers", 1, 2, 3},
        {"zeros", 0, 0, 0},
        {"negative", -1, 1, 0},
    }

    for _, tt := range tests {
        t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
            got := Add(tt.a, tt.b)
            if got != tt.want {
                t.Errorf("Add(%d, %d) = %d, want %d", tt.a, tt.b, got, tt.want)
            }
        })
    }
}

Error Messages

// BAD
if got != want {
    t.Error("wrong result")
}

// GOOD
if got != want {
    t.Errorf("GetUser(%d) = %v, want %v", id, got, want)
}

// For complex types
if diff := cmp.Diff(want, got); diff != "" {
    t.Errorf("GetUser() mismatch (-want +got):\
%s", diff)
}

Parallel Tests

func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
    tests := []struct{...}

    for _, tt := range tests {
        tt := tt  // capture (not needed Go 1.22+)
        t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
            t.Parallel()
            // test code
        })
    }
}

Cleanup

// BAD - manual cleanup, skipped on failure
func TestWithTempFile(t *testing.T) {
    f, _ := os.CreateTemp("", "test")
    defer os.Remove(f.Name())  // skipped if test panics
}

// GOOD
func TestWithTempFile(t *testing.T) {
    f, _ := os.CreateTemp("", "test")
    t.Cleanup(func() {
        os.Remove(f.Name())
    })
}

Additional Patterns

Benchmarks

func BenchmarkProcess(b *testing.B) {
    data := generateTestData(1000)
    b.ResetTimer()

    for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
        Process(data)
    }
}

// Run: go test -bench=BenchmarkProcess -benchmem

Fuzz Tests (Go 1.18+)

func FuzzParseInput(f *testing.F) {
    // Seed corpus
    f.Add(`{"name": "test"}`)
    f.Add(``)
    f.Add(`{invalid}`)

    f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, input string) {
        result, err := ParseInput(input)
        if err != nil {
            return // invalid input is expected
        }
        // If parsing succeeded, re-encoding should work
        if _, err := json.Marshal(result); err != nil {
            t.Errorf("Marshal after Parse: %v", err)
        }
    })
}

// Run: go test -fuzz=FuzzParseInput -fuzztime=30s

HTTP Handler Tests

func TestHandler(t *testing.T) {
    srv := NewServer(mockDeps)

    req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/api/users/123", nil)
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()

    srv.ServeHTTP(w, req)

    if w.Code != http.StatusOK {
        t.Errorf("status = %d, want %d", w.Code, http.StatusOK)
    }
}

Golden Files

var update = flag.Bool("update", false, "update golden files")

func TestRender(t *testing.T) {
    got := Render(input)
    golden := filepath.Join("testdata", t.Name()+".golden")

    if *update {
        if err := os.WriteFile(golden, got, 0644); err != nil {
            t.Fatalf("writing golden file: %v", err)
        }
    }

    want, err := os.ReadFile(golden)
    if err != nil {
        t.Fatalf("reading golden file: %v (run with -update to create)", err)
    }
    if !bytes.Equal(got, want) {
        t.Errorf("output mismatch:\
got:\
%s\
want:\
%s", got, want)
    }
}

Anti-Patterns

1. Testing Internal Implementation

// BAD - tests private state
func TestUser(t *testing.T) {
    u := NewUser("alice")
    if u.id != 1 {  // testing internal field
        t.Error("wrong id")
    }
}

// GOOD - tests behavior
func TestUser(t *testing.T) {
    u := NewUser("alice")
    if u.ID() != 1 {
        t.Error("wrong ID")
    }
}

2. Shared Mutable State

// BAD - tests interfere with each other
var testDB = setupDB()

func TestA(t *testing.T) {
    t.Parallel()
    testDB.Insert(...)  // race!
}

// GOOD - isolated per test
func TestA(t *testing.T) {
    db := setupTestDB(t)
    t.Cleanup(func() { db.Close() })
    db.Insert(...)
}

3. Assertions Without Context

// BAD
assert.Equal(t, want, got)  // "expected X got Y" - which test?

// GOOD
assert.Equal(t, want, got, "user name after update")

When to Load References

  • Reviewing test file structure → structure.md
  • Reviewing mock implementations → mocking.md

Review Questions

  1. Are tests table-driven with named cases?
  2. Do error messages include input, got, and want?
  3. Are parallel tests isolated (no shared state)?
  4. Is cleanup done via t.Cleanup?
  5. Do tests verify behavior, not implementation?

平台分布

OpenClaw

79.66%
按下载量换算1,500

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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