Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

multi-agent-e2e-validation(多 Agent 端到端验证)

multi-agent-e2e-validation 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。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 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,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证为 MIT,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 35,158。

总安装 2,130周安装 87GitHub Stars 38下载 682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

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:multi-agent-e2e-validation(多 Agent 端到端验证)
来源仓库:https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills
仓库路径:skills/multi-agent-e2e-validation
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill multi-agent-e2e-validation
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill multi-agent-e2e-validation

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。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合快速定位候选结果。适用于关键词搜索、任务场景匹配或来源线索梳理等研究检索任务。通过 npx skills add 命令从 terrylica/cc-skills 仓库安装使用。安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态及是否触发联网或文件操作。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/multi-agent-e2e-validation

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/terrylica/cc-skills --skill multi-agent-e2e-va…;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

multi-agent-e2e-validation 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill multi-agent-e2e-validation。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 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。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 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。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。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。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,130 次,近一周安装 87 次,下载 682 次,GitHub 38 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。

multi-agent-e2e-validation 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。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,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 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。
  • 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。

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
multi-agent-e2e-validation

多 Agent 端到端验证 · 本页

2,13038接触敏感数据MIT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

Multi-Agent E2E Validation

Self-Evolving Skill: This skill improves through use. If instructions are wrong, parameters drifted, or a workaround was needed — fix this file immediately, don't defer. Only update for real, reproducible issues.

Overview

Prescriptive workflow for spawning parallel validation agents to comprehensively test database refactors. Successfully identified 5 critical bugs (100% system failure rate) in QuestDB migration that would have shipped in production.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

  • Database refactors (e.g., v3.x file-based → v4.x QuestDB)
  • Schema migrations requiring validation
  • Bulk data ingestion pipeline testing
  • System migrations with multiple validation layers
  • Pre-release validation for database-centric systems

Key outcomes:

  • Parallel agent execution for comprehensive coverage
  • Structured validation reporting (VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md)
  • Bug discovery with severity classification (Critical/Medium/Low)
  • Release readiness assessment

Core Methodology

1. Validation Architecture (3-Layer Model)

Layer 1: Environment Setup

  • Container orchestration (Colima/Docker)
  • Database deployment and schema application
  • Connectivity validation (ILP, PostgreSQL, HTTP ports)
  • Configuration file creation and validation

Layer 2: Data Flow Validation

  • Bulk ingestion testing (CloudFront → QuestDB)
  • Performance benchmarking against SLOs
  • Multi-month data ingestion
  • Deduplication testing (re-ingestion scenarios)
  • Type conversion validation (FLOAT→LONG casts)

Layer 3: Query Interface Validation

  • High-level query methods (get_latest, get_range, execute_sql)
  • Edge cases (limit=1, cross-month boundaries)
  • Error handling (invalid symbols, dates, parameters)
  • Gap detection SQL compatibility

2. Agent Orchestration Pattern

Sequential vs Parallel Execution:

Agent 1 (Environment) → [SEQUENTIAL - prerequisite]
  ↓
Agent 2 (Bulk Loader) → [PARALLEL with Agent 3]
Agent 3 (Query Interface) → [PARALLEL with Agent 2]

Dependency Rule: Environment validation must pass before data flow/query validation

Dynamic Todo Management:

  • Start with high-level plan (ADR-defined phases)
  • Prune completed agents from todo list
  • Grow todo list when bugs discovered (e.g., Bug #5 found by Agent 3)
  • Update VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md incrementally

3. Validation Script Structure

Each agent produces:

  1. Test Script (e.g., test_bulk_loader.py)

- 5+ test functions with clear pass/fail criteria - Structured output (test name, result, details) - Summary report at end

  1. Artifacts (logs, config files, evidence)
  2. Findings Report (bugs, severity, fix proposals)

Example Test Structure:

def test_feature(conn):
    """Test 1: Feature description"""
    print("=" * 80)
    print("TEST 1: Feature description")
    print("=" * 80)

    results = {}

    # Test 1a: Subtest name
    print("\n1a. Testing subtest:")
    result_1a = perform_test()
    print(f"   Result: {result_1a}")
    results["subtest_1a"] = result_1a == expected_1a

    # Summary
    print("\n" + "-" * 80)
    all_passed = all(results.values())
    print(f"Test 1 Results: {'✓ PASS' if all_passed else '✗ FAIL'}")
    for test_name, passed in results.items():
        print(f"  - {test_name}: {'✓' if passed else '✗'}")

    return {"success": all_passed, "details": results}

4. Bug Classification and Tracking

Severity Levels:

  • 🔴 Critical: 100% system failure (e.g., API mismatch, timestamp corruption)
  • 🟡 Medium: Degraded functionality (e.g., below SLO performance)
  • 🟢 Low: Minor issues, edge cases

Bug Report Format:

#### Bug N: Descriptive Name (**SEVERITY** - Status)

**Location**: `file/path.py:line`

**Issue**: One-sentence description

**Impact**: Quantified impact (e.g., "100% ingestion failure")

**Root Cause**: Technical explanation

**Fix Applied**: Code changes with before/after

**Verification**: Test results proving fix

**Status**: ✅ FIXED / ⚠️ PARTIAL / ❌ OPEN

5. Release Readiness Decision Framework

Go/No-Go Criteria:

BLOCKER = Any Critical bug unfixed
SHIP = All Critical bugs fixed + (Medium bugs acceptable OR fixed)
DEFER = >3 Medium bugs unfixed OR any High-severity bug

Example Decision:

  • 5 Critical bugs found → all fixed ✅
  • 1 Medium bug (performance 55% below SLO) → acceptable ✅
  • Verdict: RELEASE READY

Workflow: Step-by-Step

Step 1: Create Validation Plan (ADR-Driven)

Input: ADR document (e.g., ADR-0002 QuestDB Refactor) Output: Validation plan with 3-7 agents

Plan Structure:

## Validation Agents

### Agent 1: Environment Setup

- Deploy QuestDB via Docker
- Apply schema.sql
- Validate connectivity (ILP, PG, HTTP)
- Create .env configuration

### Agent 2: Bulk Loader Validation

- Test CloudFront → QuestDB ingestion
- Benchmark performance (target: >100K rows/sec)
- Validate deduplication (re-ingestion test)
- Multi-month ingestion test

### Agent 3: Query Interface Validation

- Test get_latest() with various limits
- Test get_range() with date boundaries
- Test execute_sql() with parameterized queries
- Test detect_gaps() SQL compatibility
- Test error handling (invalid inputs)

Step 2: Execute Agent 1 (Environment)

Directory Structure:

tmp/e2e-validation/
  agent-1-env/
    test_environment_setup.py
    questdb.log
    config.env
    schema-check.txt

Validation Checklist:

  • ✅ Container running
  • ✅ Ports accessible (9009 ILP, 8812 PG, 9000 HTTP)
  • ✅ Schema applied without errors
  • ✅.env file created

Step 3: Execute Agents 2-3 in Parallel

Agent 2: Bulk Loader

tmp/e2e-validation/
  agent-2-bulk/
    test_bulk_loader.py
    ingestion_benchmark.txt
    deduplication_test.txt

Agent 3: Query Interface

tmp/e2e-validation/
  agent-3-query/
    test_query_interface.py
    gap_detection_test.txt

Execution:

# Terminal 1
cd tmp/e2e-validation/agent-2-bulk
uv run python test_bulk_loader.py

# Terminal 2
cd tmp/e2e-validation/agent-3-query
uv run python test_query_interface.py

Step 4: Document Findings in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md

Template:

# E2E Validation Findings Report

**Validation ID**: ADR-XXXX
**Branch**: feat/database-refactor
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Target Release**: vX.Y.Z
**Status**: [BLOCKED / READY / IN_PROGRESS]

## Executive Summary

E2E validation discovered **N critical bugs** that would have caused [impact]:

| Finding | Severity | Status | Impact       | Agent   |
| ------- | -------- | ------ | ------------ | ------- |
| Bug 1   | Critical | Fixed  | 100% failure | Agent 2 |

**Recommendation**: [RELEASE READY / BLOCKED / DEFER]

## Agent 1: Environment Setup - [STATUS]

...

## Agent 2: [Name] - [STATUS]

...

Step 5: Iterate on Fixes

For each bug:

  1. Document in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md with 🔴/🟡/🟢 severity
  2. Apply fix to source code
  3. Re-run failing test
  4. Update bug status to ✅ FIXED
  5. Commit with semantic message (e.g., fix: correct timestamp parsing in CSV ingestion)

Example Fix Commit:

git add src/gapless_crypto_clickhouse/collectors/questdb_bulk_loader.py
git commit -m "fix: prevent pandas from treating first CSV column as index

BREAKING CHANGE: All timestamps were defaulting to epoch 0 (1970-01)
due to pandas read_csv() auto-indexing. Added index_col=False to
preserve first column as data.

Fixes #ABC-123"

Step 6: Final Validation and Release Decision

Run all tests:

/usr/bin/env bash << 'SKILL_SCRIPT_EOF'
cd tmp/e2e-validation
for agent in agent-*; do
    echo "=== Running $agent ==="
    cd $agent
    uv run python test_*.py
    cd ..
done
SKILL_SCRIPT_EOF

Update VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md status:

  • Count Critical bugs: X fixed, Y open
  • Count Medium bugs: X fixed, Y open
  • Apply decision framework
  • Update Status field to ✅ RELEASE READY or ❌ BLOCKED

Real-World Example: QuestDB Refactor Validation

Context: Migrating from file-based storage (v3.x) to QuestDB (v4.0.0)

Bugs Found:

  1. 🔴 Sender API mismatch - Used non-existent Sender.from_uri() instead of Sender.from_conf()
  2. 🔴 Type conversion - number_of_trades sent as FLOAT, schema expects LONG
  3. 🔴 Timestamp parsing - pandas treating first column as index → epoch 0 timestamps
  4. 🔴 Deduplication - WAL mode doesn't provide UPSERT semantics (needed DEDUP ENABLE UPSERT KEYS)
  5. 🔴 SQL incompatibility - detect_gaps() used nested window functions (QuestDB unsupported)

Impact: Without this validation, v4.0.0 would ship with 100% data corruption and 100% ingestion failure

Outcome: All 5 bugs fixed, system validated, v4.0.0 released successfully

Common Pitfalls

1. Skipping Environment Validation

❌ Bad: Assume Docker/database is working, jump to data ingestion tests ✅ Good: Agent 1 validates environment first, catches port conflicts, schema errors early

2. Serial Agent Execution

❌ Bad: Run Agent 2, wait for completion, then run Agent 3 ✅ Good: Run Agent 2 & 3 in parallel (no dependency between them)

3. Manual Test Reporting

❌ Bad: Copy/paste test output into Slack/email ✅ Good: Structured VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md with severity, status, fix tracking

4. Ignoring Medium Bugs

❌ Bad: "Performance is 55% below SLO, but we'll fix it later" ✅ Good: Document in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md, make explicit go/no-go decision

5. No Re-validation After Fixes

❌ Bad: Apply fix, assume it works, move on ✅ Good: Re-run failing test, update status in VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md

Resources

scripts/

Not applicable - validation scripts are project-specific (stored in tmp/e2e-validation/)

references/

  • example_validation_findings.md - Complete VALIDATION_FINDINGS.md template
  • agent_test_template.py - Template for creating validation test scripts
  • bug_severity_classification.md - Detailed severity criteria and examples

assets/

Not applicable - validation artifacts are project-specific


Troubleshooting

IssueCauseSolution
Container not startingColima/Docker not runningRun colima start before Agent 1
Port conflictsPorts already in useStop conflicting containers or use different ports
Schema application failsInvalid SQL syntaxCheck schema.sql for database-specific compatibility
Agent 2/3 fail without Agent 1Environment not validatedEnsure Agent 1 completes before starting Agent 2/3
Test script import errorsMissing dependenciesRun uv pip install in agent directory
Bug status not updatingVALIDATION_FINDINGS.md staleManually refresh status after each fix
Parallel agents interferenceShared resources conflictEnsure agents use isolated directories
Decision unclearSeverity mixed Critical/MediumApply Go/No-Go criteria strictly per documentation

Post-Execution Reflection

After this skill completes, reflect before closing the task:

  1. Locate yourself. — Find this SKILL.md's canonical path before editing.
  2. What failed? — Fix the instruction that caused it.
  3. What worked better than expected? — Promote to recommended practice.
  4. What drifted? — Fix any script, reference, or dependency that no longer matches reality.
  5. Log it. — Evolution-log entry with trigger, fix, and evidence.

Do NOT defer. The next invocation inherits whatever you leave behind.

平台分布

Claude Code

27.83%
按下载量换算190

OpenCode

24.72%
按下载量换算169

Antigravity

19.02%
按下载量换算130

Gemini CLI

12.7%
按下载量换算87

windsurf

8.51%
按下载量换算58

trae

3.13%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills