Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios(事件建模阐述场景)

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。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。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,674 个 Skill 里排第 55,093。

总安装 490周安装 20GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 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
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:eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios(事件建模阐述场景)
来源仓库:https://github.com/trogonstack/agentskills
仓库路径:skills/eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/trogonstack/agentskills --skill eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios
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/trogonstack/agentskills --skill eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios

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。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 扩展核心业务流程的详细场景用例。涵盖正常路径、异常处理与状态违规等多种情况。帮助识别隐藏的业务规则与边界条件,减少上线后缺陷。适用于测试用例编写前的充分场景准备阶段。输出可作为验收标准,支撑前后端联调与自动化测试设计。

来源仓库内路径:skills/eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios

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/trogonstack/agentskills --skill eventmodeling-…;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

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/trogonstack/agentskills --skill eventmodeling-elaboratin…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 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。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 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。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 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。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 490 次,近一周安装 20 次,下载 157 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。

eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios 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

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 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

  • 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。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、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。

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
eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios

事件建模阐述场景 · 本页

490—需要联网未明确通过

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

Elaborating Scenarios

Interview Phase (Optional)

When to Interview: Skip if the user has already specified: scenario coverage depth (happy path + validation + state violations), known edge cases to include, and stakeholders available for review. Interview when coverage goals are unclear or edge cases haven't been identified.

Interview Strategy: Align on scenario depth and coverage strategy to avoid under-specification or excessive documentation. Identify stakeholders who can validate business rules.

Critical Questions

When scenario coverage is uncertain:

  1. Scenario Depth & Coverage Goals (Impact: Determines scope—happy path only vs. comprehensive coverage)

- Question: "How comprehensive should scenario coverage be? (A) Happy path + basic validation, (B) All command variations, (C) Comprehensive including edge cases and error paths" - Why it matters: Affects time investment and implementation complexity; production code needs (C), design validation might use (A) or (B) - Follow-up triggers: If (C) → ask "How many scenarios per command is reasonable?"; if (A) → clarify MVP vs. production distinction

  1. Known Edge Cases & Business Rules (Impact: Ensures critical scenarios aren't missed)

- Question: "What specific edge cases or business rules are critical to test? (e.g., 'order cancellation within 24 hours', 'payment decline recovery')" - Why it matters: Business rules often generate overlooked scenarios; edge cases reveal missing events - Follow-up triggers: For each rule → ask "What scenarios demonstrate this rule? What happens when it's violated?"

  1. Testing & Automation Strategy (Impact: Shapes scenario detail and executable format)

- Question: "Will these scenarios be: (A) Automated tests, (B) Manual QA reference, (C) Documentation only?" - Why it matters: Automated tests need precise Given/When/Then; documentation can be more narrative - Follow-up triggers: If (A) → ask about test framework; if (B) → ask about QA process

  1. Stakeholder Review & Validation (Impact: Determines who validates business logic correctness)

- Question: "Who will review and validate scenarios? (A) Product Owner, (B) QA/Tester, (C) Multiple roles, (D) Engineering only?" - Why it matters: Multi-role review catches business logic errors; single role may miss perspective - Follow-up triggers: If (A) only → ask "Will PO have time for detailed review?"; if (C) → plan review workshop

Interview Flow

Conditional Entry:

If user has provided:
  - Clear scenario coverage goals (happy path + validation + state violations)
  - AND identified edge cases or known business rules to test
  - AND specified who will review/validate scenarios

Then: Skip interview, proceed directly to scenario elaboration

Else: Conduct interview

Phase 1: Coverage Planning (Questions 1-2)

  • Determine depth (happy path vs. comprehensive)
  • Identify critical edge cases to cover
  • Establish coverage priorities

Phase 2: Implementation & Review (Questions 3-4)

  • Decide on automation vs. documentation
  • Confirm stakeholder availability
  • Plan review workflow

Capturing Interview Findings

Append findings to the project's event modeling file:

File: .trogonai/interviews/[project-name]/EVENTMODELING.md

Use Write tool to add/update this section:

## 9. Scenarios (eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios)

### Coverage Goals
[From Q1: Happy path / Comprehensive / Deep]

### Critical Edge Cases
[From Q2]
- Edge case 1: [Case] → [Why important]
- Edge case 2: [Case] → [Why important]

### Business Rules Requiring Scenarios
[From Q2]
- Rule 1: [Statement] → Success + Failure scenarios
- Rule 2: [Statement] → Success + Failure scenarios

### Testing Strategy
[From Q3: Automated / Manual / Documentation]

### Review & Validation
[From Q4: Who reviews, when, workflow]

### Key Scenario Specifications
[GWT format scenarios for critical commands and views]

---

## Validation & Completeness

### Validated
- [ ] All fields traced (completeness check)
- [ ] Events are immutable
- [ ] State projections deterministic
- [ ] Model ready for code generation

**Validation Date**: [Date]

Update Interview Trail:

| 9 | eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios |  [today] | Scenario coverage, testing strategy, edge cases |

At this point, EVENTMODELING.md is complete and ready for implementation!


Workshop Facilitation Guide

Context: Scenarios are created in a collaborative workshop with multiple stakeholders. Use this approach for rapid, real-time scenario creation:

Before the Workshop

Participants (required roles):

  • Product Owner/Domain Expert: Knows business rules, priorities, edge cases
  • Developer: Technical feasibility, implementation concerns
  • QA/Tester: Test coverage, edge cases, error scenarios
  • Facilitator: Keeps pace, ensures shared understanding, captures scenarios

Setup:

  • Whiteboard or collaborative tool (Miro, Figma, etc.)
  • Sticky notes or digital cards for scenarios
  • Previously completed steps: Events timeline and system boundaries
  • Timer for time-boxing per command/view

During Workshop (Per Command/View)

Rapid Cycle (15-20 min per command):

  1. Happy Path First: "What's the normal success case?" (Product Owner leads)

- Facilitator writes scenario live - All roles review in real-time - Adjust based on feedback

  1. Validation Failures: "What could go wrong with inputs?" (Developer/QA)

- Common: invalid format, missing fields, invalid references - Quick scenarios, add to board

  1. State Violations: "What if system is in wrong state?" (Domain Expert)

- Example: "Can't confirm if already confirmed" - These are business rules, often overlooked

  1. Alternative Paths: "Are there other ways this could work?" (Product Owner)

- Different paths through the same command - Different outcomes based on business logic

  1. Error Handling: "What if external systems fail?" (Developer)

- Payment decline, inventory unavailable - Recovery/retry scenarios

  1. Compensation: "Can this be undone?" (Domain Expert)

- Cancellation, reversal, refund flows - Often reveal missing events

Review Style:

  • Each scenario read aloud by facilitator
  • Quick check: "Is this right?" (Everyone nods or speaks up)
  • Move forward—don't perfect, iterate later
  • Target: 3-5 scenarios per command, 10-20 minutes per command

Multi-Role Review

As scenarios are written, ensure each role checks:

  • Product Owner: "Is this the right business behavior?"
  • Developer: "Can we implement this? Need system state? Edge cases?"
  • QA: "Can we test this? Is it clear enough?"
  • Facilitator: "Do we have enough detail for coding?"

Common Workshop Mistakes to Avoid

Perfectionism: Don't spend 30 minutes on one scenario. Capture and move. Missing roles: One person can't represent all perspectives. Too technical: Use domain language, not code. Adjust in implementation. Incomplete givens: "Given an order" is too vague. Specify state. Unclear events: Every scenario must show what event is produced (or why not).

Tips for Rapid Creation

Use templates: Have sticky note templates with Given/When/Then pre-printed Parallel work: Different people write different scenarios simultaneously Capture edge cases: When someone says "What if...?" → immediately capture as scenario Reference past decisions: Point to event timeline and boundary diagrams Record decisions: Why did we choose this behavior? (Helps implementers later)

Workflow

For each command and view, write scenarios in Given-When-Then format:

1. Command Scenarios (Given-When-Then)

Specify command behavior:

Feature: Order Creation

Scenario: Create order successfully
Given a customer with ID "cust-123"
And products exist with IDs ["prod-1", "prod-2"]
And customer has valid shipping address
When the customer creates an order with items:
    | productId | quantity | unitPrice |
    | prod-1    | 2        | 50.00    |
    | prod-2    | 1        | 30.00    |
Then the order should be created with status "Draft"
And the total should be calculated as 130.00
And an "OrderCreated" event is produced with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | {uuid} |
    | customerId | cust-123 |
    | items | [...] |
    | total | 130.00 |
    | status | Draft |

Scenario: Reject order with invalid customer
Given a customer ID "invalid-cust"
And no customer exists with that ID
When the customer tries to create an order
Then the command should be rejected
And the rejection reason is "Customer not found"
And no event is produced

Scenario: Reject order with empty items
Given a customer with ID "cust-123"
And an empty items list []
When the customer tries to create an order
Then the command should be rejected
And the rejection reason is "Order must contain items"
And no event is produced

Scenario: Reject order with invalid address
Given a customer with ID "cust-123"
And an incomplete shipping address (missing city)
When the customer tries to create an order
Then the command should be rejected
And the rejection reason is "Invalid shipping address"
And no event is produced

2. Command Scenarios - State Validation

Specify how stream state affects command:

Feature: Order Confirmation

Scenario: Confirm order in Draft state
Given an order "order-456" in Draft state
And OrderCreated event exists
And no OrderConfirmed event exists
When the customer confirms the order with payment method "card"
Then the order should be confirmed
And an "OrderConfirmed" event is produced with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-456 |
    | paymentMethod | card |
    | confirmedAt | {timestamp} |

Scenario: Reject confirming already-confirmed order
Given an order "order-456" in Confirmed state
And OrderConfirmed event already exists
When the customer tries to confirm the order again
Then the command should be rejected
And the rejection reason is "Order already confirmed"
And no OrderConfirmed event is produced

Scenario: Reject confirming cancelled order
Given an order "order-456" in Cancelled state
And OrderCancelled event exists
When the customer tries to confirm the order
Then the command should be rejected
And the rejection reason is "Cannot confirm cancelled order"
And no event is produced

3. View Scenarios (Given-When-Then)

Specify how read models display data:

Feature: Order Status View

Scenario: Display order after creation
Given an OrderCreated event with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-789 |
    | customerId | cust-123 |
    | items | [{...}] |
    | total | 150.00 |
When the OrderStatusView processes this event
Then the view should display:
    | field | value |
    | Order ID | order-789 |
    | Status | Draft |
    | Total | $150.00 |
    | Items | 3 products |
    | Created | {date} |

Scenario: Update status after confirmation
Given an OrderCreated event already processed
And OrderStatusView showing status "Draft"
When an OrderConfirmed event is received with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-789 |
    | confirmedAt | 2024-12-31T10:00:00Z |
Then the view should update to display:
    | field | value |
    | Status | Confirmed |
    | Confirmed Date | 12/31/2024 10:00 AM |

Scenario: Accumulate payment information
Given OrderConfirmed event processed (status=Confirmed)
When a PaymentAuthorized event arrives with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-789 |
    | paymentId | pay-123 |
    | authCode | AUTH-456 |
Then the view should accumulate:
    | field | value |
    | Payment ID | pay-123 |
    | Auth Code | AUTH-456 |
    | Payment Status | Authorized |

4. Error Path Scenarios

Specify how system handles failures:

Feature: Payment Authorization Failure

Scenario: Handle declined payment
Given an order "order-001" in Confirmed state
And customer initiates payment
When the payment gateway declines the card
Then a PaymentFailed event is produced with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-001 |
    | reason | Card declined |
    | timestamp | {now} |

Scenario: Update order view on payment failure
Given OrderStatusView shows status "Confirmed"
When PaymentFailed event arrives for order-001
Then the view should update:
    | field | value |
    | Payment Status | Failed |
    | Failure Reason | Card declined |
    | Retry Available | Yes |

Scenario: Allow retry after payment failure
Given a PaymentFailed event exists
And order status is still "Confirmed"
When customer retries payment
Then the new AuthorizePayment command is accepted
And can produce new PaymentAuthorized event

5. Compensation Scenarios

Specify rollback/cancellation flows:

Feature: Order Cancellation

Scenario: Cancel order in Draft state
Given an order "order-555" in Draft state
And only OrderCreated event exists
When customer cancels the order with reason "Changed mind"
Then an OrderCancelled event is produced with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-555 |
    | reason | Changed mind |
    | cancelledAt | {timestamp} |

Scenario: Cannot cancel completed order
Given an order "order-555" in Delivered state
And DeliveryConfirmed event exists
When customer tries to cancel
Then the command should be rejected
And the rejection reason is "Cannot cancel delivered order"

Scenario: Trigger compensation on cancellation
Given an order in Confirmed state
And PaymentAuthorized event exists
When OrderCancelled event is produced
Then a RefundPayment command should be automatically triggered
And RefundInitiated event should follow

Output Format

Present as:

# Scenarios: [Domain Name]

## Commands

### Command: CreateOrder

**Description**: Customer creates a new order with items and shipping address.

#### Scenario 1: Successful Order Creation

Given a customer with ID "cust-123" And products ["prod-1", "prod-2"] exist in catalog And the shipping address is valid When the customer creates an order: | customerId | cust-123 | | items | [{productId: prod-1, qty: 2}, {productId: prod-2, qty: 1}] | | shippingAddress | {street, city, state, zip} | Then the command succeeds And an "OrderCreated" event is produced with all input data And the order status is "Draft"


#### Scenario 2: Reject with Invalid Customer

Given a customer ID "invalid" that doesn't exist When the customer tries to create an order Then the command is rejected And the error is "Customer not found" And no event is produced


[Continue for each scenario]

---

### Command: ConfirmOrder

**Description**: Customer confirms order and selects payment method.

#### Scenario 1: Confirm Draft Order

Given an order in "Draft" state And OrderCreated event exists When the customer confirms with paymentMethod="card" Then an "OrderConfirmed" event is produced And the order status becomes "Confirmed"


#### Scenario 2: Prevent Duplicate Confirmation

Given an order already in "Confirmed" state And OrderConfirmed event already exists When the customer tries to confirm again Then the command is rejected And the error is "Order already confirmed" And no new event is produced


---

## Views

### View: OrderStatusView

**Description**: Real-time order status display showing accumulated event data.

#### Scenario 1: Initial Display After Creation

Given an OrderCreated event with id, customer, items, total, address When the view processes this event Then the view displays: - Order ID: order-123 - Status: Draft - Total: $150.00 - Items: 3 products - Customer: cust-456


#### Scenario 2: Update on Confirmation

Given the view displaying status="Draft" When an OrderConfirmed event arrives Then the view updates to: - Status: Confirmed - Confirmed At: {timestamp} - Payment Method: (from event)


#### Scenario 3: Accumulate Payment Data

Given status="Confirmed" When PaymentAuthorized event arrives Then the view shows: - Payment Status: Authorized - Auth Code: (from event) - Payment ID: (from event)


---

## Error Paths

### Scenario: Payment Decline

Given an order in "Confirmed" state When payment gateway declines Then PaymentFailed event is produced And OrderStatusView updates to show: - Payment Status: Failed - Retry Available: true


---

## Compensation Flows

### Scenario: Order Cancellation with Refund

Given an order in "Confirmed" state And PaymentAuthorized event exists When OrderCancelled event is produced Then a RefundPayment command is triggered And RefundInitiated event follows And inventory reservation is released

Quality Checklist

  • Every command has success scenario
  • Every command has failure scenarios
  • Every command has state-validation scenarios
  • State preconditions are explicit (Given)
  • Actions are clear (When)
  • Outcomes are verifiable (Then)
  • Event data is specified
  • Rejection reasons are clear
  • Every view has update scenarios
  • Alternative paths documented
  • Compensation flows specified
  • Error handling explicit
  • Workshop facilitation approach documented
  • All stakeholder roles (PO, Dev, QA, Domain Expert) perspectives captured
  • Rapid time-boxing used (15-20 min per command)
  • Edge cases suggested by participants captured
  • Why behind business rules documented (not just the what)

Gherkin Best Practices

Good:
Given an order in "Draft" state
When the customer confirms the order
Then the status changes to "Confirmed"

Bad:
Given order
When stuff happens
Then it works

Good:
And an OrderConfirmed event is produced with:
    | field | value |
    | orderId | order-123 |

Bad:
And an event is produced

Good:
Then the command is rejected
And the error is "Customer not found"

Bad:
Then there's an error

Scenario Organization

  1. Happy Path: Successful execution
  2. Validation Failures: Invalid inputs
  3. State Violations: Wrong pre-conditions
  4. Duplicate Actions: Already processed
  5. Alternative Paths: Different branches
  6. Error Handling: Failures and recovery
  7. Compensation: Rollback and cleanup

Key Principles

  1. One Scenario = One Test: Each scenario is testable
  2. Explicit Preconditions: State is clear in "Given"
  3. Clear Actions: "When" describes user/processor action
  4. Verifiable Outcomes: "Then" checks results
  5. Event-Centric: Every scenario produces or updates events
  6. Business Language: Use domain terms, not technical jargon

平台分布

Codex

37.18%
按下载量换算58

Claude

30.31%
按下载量换算48

Cursor

17.62%
按下载量换算28

Gemini CLI

9.57%
按下载量换算15

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

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