Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

qa-resilience(质量保证弹性)

qa-resilience 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。

qa-resilience 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,权限为调用外部服务;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 35,385。

总安装 2,093周安装 89GitHub Stars 60下载 733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:qa-resilience(质量保证弹性)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public
仓库路径:skills/qa-resilience
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill qa-resilience
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/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill qa-resilience

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。

qa-resilience 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。它支持基于关键词或任务场景的信息匹配,适用于系统弹性与容错相关的资料准备。

通过安装命令 npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill qa-resilience 添加技能,具体用法可参考仓库中的 SKILL.md。安装前请确认权限范围、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/qa-resilience

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/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill qa-resili…;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

    它需要调用外部服务,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

qa-resilience 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill qa-resilience。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

qa-resilience 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。

qa-resilience 需要什么权限?

权限级别是调用外部服务。该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

qa-resilience 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。

qa-resilience 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,093 次,近一周安装 89 次,下载 733 次,GitHub 60 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。

qa-resilience 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

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。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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
qa-resilience

质量保证弹性 · 本页

2,09360调用外部服务MIT有提醒

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 Resilience (Jan 2026) - Failure Mode Testing & Production Hardening

This skill provides execution-ready patterns for building resilient, fault-tolerant systems that handle failures gracefully, and for validating those behaviors with tests.

Core sources are curated in data/sources.json.

Common Requests

Use this skill when a user requests:

  • Circuit breaker implementation
  • Retry strategies and exponential backoff
  • Bulkhead pattern for resource isolation
  • Backpressure, load shedding, and overload protection
  • Timeout policies for external dependencies
  • Graceful degradation and fallback mechanisms
  • Health check design (liveness vs readiness)
  • Error handling best practices
  • Chaos engineering setup
  • Game days / DR / failover testing (with guardrails)
  • Production hardening strategies
  • Fault injection testing

When NOT to use this skill:

  • Simple CRUD apps with no external dependencies — use basic error handling
  • Single database, no network calls — standard connection pooling sufficient
  • Pure batch jobs with manual retry — scheduled job frameworks handle this
  • Frontend-only validation — see software-frontend instead

Quick Start (Default Workflow)

If key context is missing, ask for: critical user journeys, dependency inventory (including third parties), SLO/SLI targets, current timeout/retry/circuit-breaker settings, idempotency/dedup strategy, and where fault injection is allowed (local/staging/prod).

  1. Define scope: critical user journeys, top N dependencies, and SLOs/SLIs (latency, errors, saturation).
  2. Build a dependency contract per dependency: timeout budget, retry policy (bounded + jitter), idempotency/dedup expectations, circuit breaker thresholds, and fallback/degraded behavior.
  3. Choose a test harness: deterministic fault injection first (mocks/fakes, fault proxy, service mesh faults), then staged chaos experiments, then game day/DR drills if applicable.
  4. Define pass/fail signals: error budget burn, p95/p99 budgets, fallback rates, queue backlog, circuit breaker state changes, and recovery time.
  5. Produce artifacts (use templates): Resilience Test Plan Template, Fault Injection Playbook, Resilience Runbook Template.

Core QA (Default)

Failure Mode Testing (What to Validate)

  • Timeouts: every network call and DB query has a bounded timeout; validate timeout budgets across chained calls and deadline/cancellation propagation.
  • Retries: bounded retries with backoff + jitter; validate idempotency/dedup and retry storm safeguards (caps, budgets, and per-try timeouts).
  • Dependency failure: partial outage, slow downstream, rate limiting, DNS failures, auth failures, and corrupted/invalid responses.
  • Overload/saturation: connection pool exhaustion, queue backlog, thread pool starvation, and rate limiting; validate backpressure and load shedding.
  • Degraded-mode UX: what the user sees/gets when dependencies fail (cached/stale/partial responses) and what consistency guarantees apply.
  • Health checks: validate liveness/readiness/startup probe behavior (Kubernetes probes: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/configure-liveness-readiness-startup-probes/).

Right-Sized Chaos Engineering (Safe by Construction)

  • Define steady state and hypothesis (Principles of Chaos Engineering: https://principlesofchaos.org/).
  • Start in non-prod; in prod, use minimal blast radius, timeboxed runs, and explicit abort criteria.
  • REQUIRED: rollback plan, owners, and observability signals before running experiments.
  • REQUIRED (prod): change window + on-call aware, error budget healthy, and an explicit stop condition based on customer impact signals.

Load/Perf + Production Guardrails

  • Load tests validate capacity and tail latency; resilience tests validate behavior under failure.
  • Guardrails:

- Run heavy resilience/perf suites on schedule (nightly) and on canary deploys, not on every PR. - Gate releases on regression budgets (p99 latency, error rate, saturation) rather than on raw CPU/memory.

Flake Control for Resilience Tests

  • Chaos/fault injection can look "flaky" if the experiment is not deterministic.
  • Stabilize the experiment first: fixed blast radius, controlled fault parameters, deterministic duration, strong observability.

Debugging Ergonomics

  • Every resilience test run should capture: experiment parameters, target scope, timestamps, and trace/log links for failures.
  • Prefer tracing/metrics to confirm the failure is the expected one (not collateral damage).

Do / Avoid

Do:

  • Test degraded mode explicitly; document expected UX and API responses.
  • Validate retries/timeouts in integration tests with fault injection.

Avoid:

  • Unbounded retries and missing timeouts (amplifies incidents).
  • "Happy-path only" testing that ignores downstream failure classes.

Quick Reference

PatternMechanism / ToolingWhen to UseConfiguration (Starting Point)
Circuit BreakerApp-level breaker or service mesh; emit breaker state changesSustained downstream failures or timeoutsOpen on sustained error/timeout rates; use half-open probes; tune windows to traffic + error budget
Retry with BackoffClient retry libs; respect Retry-After for 429/503Transient failures and rate limiting2-3 retries max for user-facing paths; backoff + jitter; per-try timeouts; never exceed remaining deadline
Timeout BudgetsDeadlines/cancellation + DB statement timeoutsAny remote call or queryBudget per hop; fail fast; propagate deadlines; set DB query timeout and pool wait timeout
Bulkheads + BackpressureConcurrency limiters, separate pools/queues, admission controlOverload/saturation riskSeparate pools per dependency; bound queues; reject early (429/503) over uncontrolled latency growth
Graceful DegradationFeature flags, cached/stale fallback, partial responsesNon-critical features and partial outagesDefine data freshness + UX; instrument fallback rate; avoid silent degradation
Health ChecksK8s liveness/readiness/startup probesOrchestration and load balancingLiveness shallow; readiness checks critical deps (bounded); startup for slow init; add graceful shutdown
Chaos / Fault InjectionFault proxies, service-mesh faults, managed chaos toolsValidate behavior under real failure modesStart in non-prod; control blast radius; timebox; predefine stop conditions; record experiment parameters

Decision Tree: Resilience Pattern Selection

Failure scenario: [System Dependency Type]
    ├─ External API/Service?
    │   ├─ Transient errors? → Retry with exponential backoff + jitter
    │   ├─ Cascading failures? → Circuit breaker + fallback
    │   ├─ Rate limiting? → Retry with Retry-After header respect
    │   └─ Slow response? → Timeout + circuit breaker
    │
    ├─ Database Dependency?
    │   ├─ Connection pool exhaustion? → Bulkhead isolation + timeout
    │   ├─ Query timeout? → Statement timeout (5-10s)
    │   ├─ Replica lag? → Read from primary fallback
    │   └─ Connection failures? → Retry + circuit breaker
    │
    ├─ Overload/Saturation?
    │   ├─ Queue/pool growing? → Backpressure + bound queues + admission control
    │   ├─ Thundering herd? → Jitter + request coalescing + caching
    │   └─ Expensive paths? → Load shedding + feature flag degradation
    │
    ├─ Non-Critical Feature?
    │   ├─ ML recommendations? → Feature flag + default values fallback
    │   ├─ Search service? → Cached results or basic SQL fallback
    │   ├─ Email/notifications? → Log error, don't block main flow
    │   └─ Analytics? → Fire-and-forget, circuit breaker for protection
    │
    ├─ Kubernetes/Orchestration?
    │   ├─ Service discovery? → Liveness + readiness + startup probes
    │   ├─ Slow startup? → Startup probe (failureThreshold: 30)
    │   ├─ Load balancing? → Readiness probe (check dependencies)
    │   └─ Auto-restart? → Liveness probe (simple check)
    │
    └─ Testing Resilience?
        ├─ Pre-production? → Chaos Toolkit experiments
        ├─ Production (low risk)? → Feature flags + canary deployments
        ├─ Scheduled testing? → Game days (quarterly)
        └─ Continuous chaos? → Low-blast-radius fault injection with strong guardrails

Navigation: Core Resilience Patterns

- Classic circuit breaker implementation (Node.js, Python) - Tuning, alerting, and fallback strategies

- Exponential backoff with jitter - Retry decision table (which errors to retry) - Idempotency patterns and Retry-After headers

- Semaphore pattern for thread/connection pools - Database connection pooling strategies - Queue-based bulkheads with load shedding

- Connection, request, and idle timeouts - Database query timeouts (PostgreSQL, MySQL) - Nested timeout budgets for chained operations

- Cached fallback strategies - Default values and feature toggles - Partial responses with Promise.allSettled

- Liveness, readiness, and startup probes - Kubernetes probe configuration - Shallow vs deep health checks

- Admission control and queue-based shedding - Backpressure propagation across services - Priority-based request handling

- Failure propagation analysis - Dependency isolation strategies - Blast radius limitation techniques

- RTO/RPO verification - Failover and failback procedures - Game day planning and execution

Navigation: Operational Resources

- Dependency resilience - Health and readiness probes - Observability for resilience - Failure testing

- Planning chaos experiments - Common failure injection scenarios - Execution steps and debrief checklist

Navigation: Templates

- Dependencies and SLOs - Fallback strategies - Rollback procedures

- Success signals - Rollback criteria - Post-experiment debrief

- Scope and dependencies - Fault matrix and expected behavior - Observability signals and pass/fail criteria

Quick Decision Matrix

ScenarioRecommendation
External API callsCircuit breaker + retry with exponential backoff
Database queriesTimeout + connection pooling + circuit breaker
Slow dependencyBulkhead isolation + timeout
Overload/saturationBulkheads + backpressure + load shedding
Non-critical featureFeature flag + graceful degradation
Kubernetes deploymentLiveness + readiness + startup probes
Testing resilienceChaos engineering experiments
Transient failuresRetry with exponential backoff + jitter
Cascading failuresCircuit breaker + bulkhead

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • No timeouts - Infinite waits exhaust resources
  • Infinite retries - Amplifies problems (thundering herd)
  • Retries without idempotency - Duplicate side effects and data corruption
  • No circuit breakers - Cascading failures
  • Tight coupling - One failure breaks everything
  • Silent failures - No observability into degraded state
  • No bulkheads - Shared thread pools exhaust all resources
  • Failover never tested - DR plan fails during a real incident
  • Testing only happy path - Production reveals failures

Optional: AI / Automation

Do:

  • Use AI to propose failure-mode scenarios from an explicit risk register; keep only scenarios that map to known dependencies and business journeys.
  • Use AI to summarize experiment results (metrics deltas, error clusters) and draft postmortem timelines; verify with telemetry.

Avoid:

  • "Scenario generation" without a risk map (creates noise and wasted load).
  • Letting AI relax timeouts/retries or remove guardrails.

Related Skills

Usage Notes

Pattern Selection:

  • Start with circuit breakers for external dependencies
  • Add retries for transient failures (network, rate limits)
  • Use bulkheads to prevent resource exhaustion
  • Combine patterns for defense-in-depth

Observability:

  • Track circuit breaker state changes
  • Monitor retry attempts and success rates
  • Alert on degraded mode duration
  • Measure recovery time after failures

Testing:

  • Start chaos experiments in non-production
  • Define hypothesis before failure injection
  • Set blast radius limits and auto-revert
  • Document learnings and action items

Success criteria: systems gracefully handle failures, recover automatically, maintain partial functionality during outages, and fail fast to prevent cascading failures. Resilience is tested proactively through fault injection and game days (with guardrails).

Fact-Checking

  • Use web search/web fetch to verify current external facts, versions, pricing, deadlines, regulations, or platform behavior before final answers.
  • Prefer primary sources; report source links and dates for volatile information.
  • If web access is unavailable, state the limitation and mark guidance as unverified.

平台分布

Claude Code

29.53%
按下载量换算216

Cursor

23.75%
按下载量换算174

Antigravity

17.62%
按下载量换算129

OpenCode

14.26%
按下载量换算105

Gemini CLI

8.32%
按下载量换算61

Codex

3.46%
按下载量换算25

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

调用外部服务

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。

继续浏览同类 Skills