Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 待分类

provider-test-patterns(提供商测试模式)

用于辅助云资源、部署、容器、基础设施和运维自动化任务。它适合让 Agent 检查配置、整理部署步骤、分析资源状态、生成排障思路或辅助云服务接入。使用时需要明确目标环境、账号权限、区域和资源组,区分本地测试与生产操作;涉及删除资源、重启服务、修改网络或权限配置时,应先确认影响范围。

provider-test-patterns 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,按安装量在待分类类的 11,209 个 Skill 里排第 9,979。

总安装 218周安装 9GitHub Stars 569下载 71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:provider-test-patterns(提供商测试模式)
来源仓库:https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-agent-kit
仓库路径:skills/provider-test-patterns
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-agent-kit --skill provider-test-patterns
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/hashicorp/terraform-agent-kit --skill provider-test-patterns

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。

用于辅助云资源部署和基础设施自动化任务。适合检查配置、整理部署步骤或分析资源状态。使用时需明确目标环境、账号权限和资源组。涉及删除或修改网络配置时应先确认影响范围。建议区分测试与生产环境,避免误操作。provider-test-patterns 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/provider-test-patterns

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/hashicorp/terraform-agent-kit --skill provider…;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

provider-test-patterns 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-agent-kit --skill provider-test-patt…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

provider-test-patterns 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。

provider-test-patterns 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。

provider-test-patterns 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。

provider-test-patterns 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 218 次,近一周安装 9 次,下载 71 次,GitHub 569 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。

provider-test-patterns 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
provider-test-patterns

提供商测试模式 · 本页

218569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

Provider Acceptance Test Patterns

Patterns for writing acceptance tests using terraform-plugin-testing with the Plugin Framework.

Source: HashiCorp Testing Patterns

References (load when needed):

  • references/checks.md — statecheck, plancheck, knownvalue types, tfjsonpath, comparers
  • references/sweepers.md — sweeper setup, TestMain, dependencies
  • references/ephemeral.md — ephemeral resource testing, echoprovider, multi-step patterns

Test Lifecycle

The framework runs each TestStep through: plan → apply → refresh → final plan. If the final plan shows a diff, the test fails (unless ExpectNonEmptyPlan is set). After all steps, destroy runs followed by CheckDestroy. This means every test automatically verifies that configurations apply cleanly and produce no drift — no assertions needed for that.


Test Function Structure

func TestAccExample_basic(t *testing.T) {
    var widget example.Widget
    rName := acctest.RandStringFromCharSet(10, acctest.CharSetAlphaNum)
    resourceName := "example_widget.test"

    resource.ParallelTest(t, resource.TestCase{
        PreCheck:                 func() { testAccPreCheck(t) },
        ProtoV6ProviderFactories: testAccProtoV6ProviderFactories,
        CheckDestroy:             testAccCheckExampleDestroy,
        Steps: []resource.TestStep{
            {
                Config: testAccExampleConfig_basic(rName),
                ConfigStateChecks: []statecheck.StateCheck{
                    stateCheckExampleExists(resourceName, &widget),
                    statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
                        tfjsonpath.New("name"), knownvalue.StringExact(rName)),
                    statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
                        tfjsonpath.New("id"), knownvalue.NotNull()),
                },
            },
        },
    })
}

Use resource.ParallelTest by default. Use resource.Test only when tests share state or cannot run concurrently.


Provider Factory

// provider_test.go — Plugin Framework with Protocol 6 (use Protocol5 variant if needed)
var testAccProtoV6ProviderFactories = map[string]func() (tfprotov6.ProviderServer, error){
    "example": providerserver.NewProtocol6WithError(New("test")()),
}

TestCase Fields

FieldPurpose
PreCheckfunc() — verify prerequisites (env vars, API access)
ProtoV6ProviderFactoriesPlugin Framework provider factories
CheckDestroyTestCheckFunc — verify resources destroyed after all steps
Steps[]TestStep — sequential test operations
TerraformVersionChecks[]tfversion.TerraformVersionCheck — gate by CLI version

TestStep Fields

Config Mode

FieldPurpose
ConfigInline HCL string to apply
ConfigStateChecks[]statecheck.StateCheck — modern assertions (preferred)
ConfigPlanChecksresource.ConfigPlanChecks{PreApply: []plancheck.PlanCheck{...}}
ExpectError*regexp.Regexp — expect failure matching pattern
ExpectNonEmptyPlanbool — expect non-empty plan after apply
PlanOnlybool — plan without applying
Destroybool — run destroy step
PreConfigfunc() — setup before step

Import Mode

FieldPurpose
ImportStatetrue to enable import mode
ImportStateVerifyVerify imported state matches prior state
ImportStateVerifyIgnore[]string — attributes to skip during verify
ImportStateKindresource.ImportBlockWithID — import block generation
ResourceNameResource address to import
ImportStateIdOverride the ID used for import

Check Functions

Modern: ConfigStateChecks (preferred)

Type-safe with aggregated error reporting. Compose built-in checks with custom statecheck.StateCheck implementations. See references/checks.md for full knownvalue types, tfjsonpath navigation, and comparers.

ConfigStateChecks: []statecheck.StateCheck{
    stateCheckExampleExists(resourceName, &widget),
    statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
        tfjsonpath.New("name"), knownvalue.StringExact("my-widget")),
    statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
        tfjsonpath.New("enabled"), knownvalue.Bool(true)),
    statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
        tfjsonpath.New("id"), knownvalue.NotNull()),
    statecheck.ExpectSensitiveValue(resourceName,
        tfjsonpath.New("api_key")),
},

Do not mix Check (legacy) and ConfigStateChecks in the same step.

Legacy: Check (for CheckDestroy and migration)

CheckDestroy on TestCase requires TestCheckFunc. The Check field on TestStep also accepts TestCheckFunc but prefer ConfigStateChecks for new tests.

Check: resource.ComposeAggregateTestCheckFunc(
    resource.TestCheckResourceAttr(name, "key", "expected"),
    resource.TestCheckResourceAttrSet(name, "id"),
    resource.TestCheckNoResourceAttr(name, "removed"),
    resource.TestMatchResourceAttr(name, "url", regexp.MustCompile(`^https://`)),
    resource.TestCheckResourceAttrPair(res1, "ref_id", res2, "id"),
),

ComposeAggregateTestCheckFunc reports all errors; ComposeTestCheckFunc fails fast on the first.


Config Helpers

Use numbered format verbs — %[1]q for quoted strings, %[1]s for raw:

func testAccExampleConfig_basic(rName string) string {
    return fmt.Sprintf(`
resource "example_widget" "test" {
  name = %[1]q
}
`, rName)
}

func testAccExampleConfig_full(rName, description string) string {
    return fmt.Sprintf(`
resource "example_widget" "test" {
  name        = %[1]q
  description = %[2]q
  enabled     = true
}
`, rName, description)
}

Scenario Patterns

Basic + Update (combine in one test — updates are supersets of basic)

Steps: []resource.TestStep{
    {
        Config: testAccExampleConfig_basic(rName),
        ConfigStateChecks: []statecheck.StateCheck{
            stateCheckExampleExists(resourceName, &widget),
            statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
                tfjsonpath.New("name"), knownvalue.StringExact(rName)),
        },
    },
    {
        Config: testAccExampleConfig_full(rName, "updated"),
        ConfigStateChecks: []statecheck.StateCheck{
            stateCheckExampleExists(resourceName, &widget),
            statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
                tfjsonpath.New("description"), knownvalue.StringExact("updated")),
        },
    },
},

Import

After a config step, verify import produces identical state. Use ImportStateKind for import block generation:

{
    ResourceName:      resourceName,
    ImportState:       true,
    ImportStateVerify: true,
    ImportStateKind:   resource.ImportBlockWithID,
},

Disappears (resource deleted externally)

{
    Config: testAccExampleConfig_basic(rName),
    ConfigStateChecks: []statecheck.StateCheck{
        stateCheckExampleExists(resourceName, &widget),
        stateCheckExampleDisappears(resourceName),
    },
    ExpectNonEmptyPlan: true,
},

Validation (expect error)

{
    Config:      testAccExampleConfig_invalidName(""),
    ExpectError: regexp.MustCompile(`name must not be empty`),
},

Regression (two-commit workflow)

A proper bug fix uses at least two commits: first commit the regression test (which fails, confirming the bug), then commit the fix (test passes). This lets reviewers independently verify the test reproduces the issue by checking out the first commit, then advancing to the fix.

Name and document regression tests to identify the issue they fix. Include a link to the original bug report when possible.

// TestAccExample_regressionGH1234 verifies fix for https://github.com/org/repo/issues/1234
func TestAccExample_regressionGH1234(t *testing.T) {
    rName := acctest.RandStringFromCharSet(10, acctest.CharSetAlphaNum)
    resourceName := "example_widget.test"

    resource.ParallelTest(t, resource.TestCase{
        PreCheck:                 func() { testAccPreCheck(t) },
        ProtoV6ProviderFactories: testAccProtoV6ProviderFactories,
        CheckDestroy:             testAccCheckExampleDestroy,
        Steps: []resource.TestStep{
            {
                // Reproduce the issue: this config triggered the bug
                Config: testAccExampleConfig_regressionGH1234(rName),
                ConfigStateChecks: []statecheck.StateCheck{
                    stateCheckExampleExists(resourceName, nil),
                    statecheck.ExpectKnownValue(resourceName,
                        tfjsonpath.New("computed_field"), knownvalue.NotNull()),
                },
            },
        },
    })
}

Helper Functions

Custom StateCheck: Exists

Implement statecheck.StateCheck for API existence verification. Separate the exists check into its own function for reuse across steps — the source recommends this as a design principle:

type exampleExistsCheck struct {
    resourceAddress string
    widget          *example.Widget
}

func (e exampleExistsCheck) CheckState(ctx context.Context, req statecheck.CheckStateRequest, resp *statecheck.CheckStateResponse) {
    r, err := stateResourceAtAddress(req.State, e.resourceAddress)
    if err != nil {
        resp.Error = err
        return
    }

    id, ok := r.AttributeValues["id"].(string)
    if !ok {
        resp.Error = fmt.Errorf("no id found for %s", e.resourceAddress)
        return
    }

    conn := testAccAPIClient()
    widget, err := conn.GetWidget(id)
    if err != nil {
        resp.Error = fmt.Errorf("%s not found via API: %w", e.resourceAddress, err)
        return
    }

    if e.widget != nil {
        *e.widget = *widget
    }
}

func stateCheckExampleExists(name string, widget *example.Widget) statecheck.StateCheck {
    return exampleExistsCheck{resourceAddress: name, widget: widget}
}

Custom StateCheck: Disappears

Delete a resource via API to simulate external deletion:

type exampleDisappearsCheck struct {
    resourceAddress string
}

func (e exampleDisappearsCheck) CheckState(ctx context.Context, req statecheck.CheckStateRequest, resp *statecheck.CheckStateResponse) {
    r, err := stateResourceAtAddress(req.State, e.resourceAddress)
    if err != nil {
        resp.Error = err
        return
    }

    id := r.AttributeValues["id"].(string)
    conn := testAccAPIClient()
    resp.Error = conn.DeleteWidget(id)
}

func stateCheckExampleDisappears(name string) statecheck.StateCheck {
    return exampleDisappearsCheck{resourceAddress: name}
}

State Resource Lookup (shared utility)

func stateResourceAtAddress(state *tfjson.State, address string) (*tfjson.StateResource, error) {
    if state == nil || state.Values == nil || state.Values.RootModule == nil {
        return nil, fmt.Errorf("no state available")
    }
    for _, r := range state.Values.RootModule.Resources {
        if r.Address == address {
            return r, nil
        }
    }
    return nil, fmt.Errorf("not found in state: %s", address)
}

Destroy Check (TestCheckFunc — required by CheckDestroy)

func testAccCheckExampleDestroy(s *terraform.State) error {
    conn := testAccAPIClient()
    for _, rs := range s.RootModule().Resources {
        if rs.Type != "example_widget" {
            continue
        }
        _, err := conn.GetWidget(rs.Primary.ID)
        if err == nil {
            return fmt.Errorf("widget %s still exists", rs.Primary.ID)
        }
        if !isNotFoundError(err) {
            return err
        }
    }
    return nil
}

PreCheck

func testAccPreCheck(t *testing.T) {
    t.Helper()
    if os.Getenv("EXAMPLE_API_KEY") == "" {
        t.Fatal("EXAMPLE_API_KEY must be set for acceptance tests")
    }
}

平台分布

Codex

38.36%
按下载量换算27

Claude

28.52%
按下载量换算20

Cursor

20.94%
按下载量换算15

Gemini CLI

10.07%
按下载量换算7

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