Claude
Skill
circuit-breaker-testing
Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded circuit-breaker-testing analysis and validation preparation; triggers include 熔断器测试 and circuit-breaker-testing.
Virus-scanned
Reviewed automatically before listing.
Download
naodeng-awesome-qa-skills-skills_en_testing-types_circuit-breaker-testing-c44b892.zip · 6 KB
Install
skills CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/circuit-breaker-testing
Claude Code
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install naodeng-awesome-qa-skills@llmmart
Git
git clone https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole naodeng/awesome-qa-skills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
Circuit-Breaker Testing
When to Use
- Use this Skill when the work needs evidence-bounded analysis of closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback.
- Use it when the input is incomplete but a reviewable first draft with assumptions and gaps is still useful.
- Use it when static design evidence must remain separate from planned validation and completed execution.
Output Format Options
- Default to Markdown organized by risk, evidence, and priority.
- If the user asks for a table, CSV, JSON, or ticket format, preserve the same finding fields and evidence states.
- Confirm the schema, enum values, and required fields before feeding the output to automation.
How to Use
- Read prompts/circuit-breaker-testing.md and follow its input audit, coverage checklist, and output order.
- Extract scope, environment, version, dependencies, constraints, success criteria, and available evidence.
- Model closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback with scenarios and decision criteria, prioritizing high-impact or hard-to-detect items.
- Separate facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions.
- When information is missing, deliver a bounded draft and the smallest evidence-gathering actions; do not write recommendations as execution results.
Reference Files
- Read prompts/circuit-breaker-testing.md for every invocation; it is the complete execution contract.
- Read evals/eval.yaml and the matching evals/cases/ when evaluating the Skill.
- Read references/, examples/, scripts/, or output-formats.md only when the directory exists and the task needs it.
Core Constraints
- Analyze only closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback; do not inject faults, access real dependencies, or call production systems.
- Do not invent thresholds, availability, recovery times, vulnerability states, or completed test runs.
- Mark unsupported claims as pending, blocked, or unassessed and provide a validation method.
- Leave risk acceptance, release approval, and Human takeover to a Human.
Delivery Self-Check
- Complete the six-part input audit and mark evidence freshness.
- Cover the circuit-breaker state, failure modes, expected concerns, and validation method.
- Separate facts, inferences, recommendations, gaps, and Human decisions.
- Do not turn static design or a dry-run into a claim of execution, passing, or release.
Common Pitfalls
- Treating adjacent performance, incident, or API analysis as a complete substitute for Circuit-Breaker Testing.
- Listing steps without triggers, expected results, owner roles, or close conditions.
- Refusing incomplete input, or filling critical facts with template assumptions.
Best Practices
- Start with the paths most likely to cause business loss or recovery failure.
- Use the smallest isolated and reversible validation suggestion, with explicit stop conditions.
- Make every conclusion reviewable by another engineer from its evidence and boundary.
Files (awesome-qa-skills)
-
agents
-
openai.yaml 336 B
version: 1 metadata: key: circuit-breaker-testing interface: display_name: "Circuit-Breaker Testing" short_description: "Evidence-bounded circuit-breaker-testing analysis and validation preparation" default_prompt: "Use the circuit-breaker-testing skill for evidence-bounded analysis." policy: allow_implicit_invocation: true
-
-
evals
-
cases
-
basic-success.yaml 1.4 KB
id: basic-success title: "Circuit-Breaker Testing: domain output with complete input" description: | Verify that the Skill produces an evidence-based, prioritized, reviewable result about closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback. input: prompt: | Use the circuit-breaker-testing Skill to analyze circuit state transitions and recovery probes after repeated payment-dependency failures. The system scope, isolated environment, main dependencies, and release constraints are provided. Produce domain risks, expected results, evidence gaps, priorities, and open questions. expect: must_contain: - "object/rule" - "source" - "trigger or applicability" - "expected concern/rationale" - "evidence state" - "impact/priority" - "owner role" - "close condition" - "validation method" - "CBR-" - "circuit-breaker state" - "priority" - "evidence" must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" judge: type: rule_based success: - output_contains: all: - "object/rule" - "source" - "trigger or applicability" - "expected concern/rationale" - "evidence state" - "impact/priority" - "owner role" - "close condition" - "validation method" - "CBR-" - "circuit-breaker state" - "open" -
edge-incomplete-input.yaml 856 B
id: edge-incomplete-input title: "Circuit-Breaker Testing: bounded draft with incomplete input" description: | Verify that missing environment, version, or dependency details produce a bounded draft with explicit assumptions and gaps. input: prompt: | Use circuit-breaker-testing. I only know that the new version involves circuit state transitions and recovery probes after repeated payment-dependency failures; architecture, thresholds, and historical results are missing. Give a usable bounded draft and list known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, assumptions, and required follow-up information. expect: must_contain: - "assumption" - "gap" - "open" must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" judge: type: rule_based success: - output_contains: all: - "assumption" - "gap" -
edge-scope-boundary.yaml 971 B
id: edge-scope-boundary title: "Circuit-Breaker Testing: execution and release boundary" description: | Verify that without run evidence the Skill rejects claims that “tests were executed”, “all tests passed”, or “release approved”, while preserving the validation boundary for circuit-breaker state. input: prompt: | Use circuit-breaker-testing to review design material for circuit state transitions and recovery probes after repeated payment-dependency failures. Only static documents are available; there is no execution record. State why “tests were executed”, “all tests passed”, or “release approved” cannot be asserted, and give stop conditions and next validation. expect: must_contain: - "circuit-breaker state" - "cannot" - "open" must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" judge: type: rule_based success: - output_contains: all: - "circuit-breaker state" - "cannot"
-
-
eval.yaml 441 B
schema_version: v1alpha1 environment: type: none skills: - source: local_path path: . engine: name: claude_code cases: files: - evals/cases/basic-success.yaml - evals/cases/edge-incomplete-input.yaml - evals/cases/edge-scope-boundary.yaml defaults: timeout_seconds: 180 max_turns: 8 expect: exit_code: 0 must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" report: formats: [json] -
local-rules.json 142 B
{ "skill": "circuit-breaker-testing", "max_commands": 20, "max_total_tokens": 100000, "permissions": { "max_escalations": 0 } } -
trigger-prompts.csv 472 B · in bundle
-
-
prompts
-
circuit-breaker-testing.md 4 KB
# Circuit-Breaker Testing Prompt ## Input Start with an input audit and record known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions: - known: scope, circuit-breaker state, or constraints directly supported by a source. - missing: material needed to judge closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback that has not been supplied. - conflicting: incompatible objectives, conditions, or behaviors across sources. - stale: architecture, version, metric, or run evidence that may be out of date. - out_of_scope: work outside this Skill, unauthorized actions, or actions requiring a real environment. - assumptions: temporary assumptions used for a bounded draft; include a validation method. ## What to do 1. Restate the objective, object, scope, and success criteria in one sentence. 2. Model failure scenarios, triggers, expected concerns, and evidence needs around closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback. 3. Assign priority, owner role, close condition, and the smallest validation method to each scenario. 4. Separate confirmed facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions. 5. State which material is design preparation and which needs isolated validation; never claim that tests ran. ## Execution Rules - Audit known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions before analysis. - Trace every conclusion to a source; mark unsupported content as pending or a validation recommendation. - Use circuit-breaker state as the domain anchor and CBR-## as the finding identifier. - Each scenario needs preconditions, stimulus or action, expected result, evidence, and stop condition. - Do not inject faults, access real dependencies, read credentials, or call production systems. - Do not upgrade file presence, names, templates, or dry-runs into execution, passing, coverage, or release evidence. ## Minimum Coverage Checklist - circuit-breaker state and applicability - Primary failure modes and triggers - Exposure window, impact, and priority - Existing controls, dependencies, and isolation boundary - Expected result, evidence state, and validation method - Close condition, residual risk, and Human decision - facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, Human decisions ## Output ### 1. Scope and Task Understanding State the objective, object, included and excluded work, success criteria, and unauthorized actions. ### 2. Input Audit List known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions with source and freshness. ### 3. circuit-breaker state and Failure Model Describe closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback scenarios, triggers, expected behavior, impact, priority, and evidence gaps. ### CBR-## Finding Contract Every finding must include: - object/rule - source - trigger or applicability - expected concern/rationale - evidence state - impact/priority - owner role - close condition - validation method ### 4. Candidate Validation and Residual Risk Separate candidate recommendations from completed execution. State the smallest validation action, stop/escalation conditions, residual risks, and open questions. ### 5. Human Decisions List only items requiring Human confirmation, risk acceptance, authorization, or release judgment. The output must preserve these sections: facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, Human decisions. ## Quality Bar - The content must target closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback, not be a generic template with a substituted title. - Never write “tests were executed”, “all tests passed”, or “release approved” without direct evidence. - Numbers, thresholds, root causes, recovery capability, and security claims require sources. - Make the next action clear to the executor and the boundaries of facts, inferences, recommendations, and Human decisions reviewable.
-
-
SKILL.md 3.3 KB
--- name: circuit-breaker-testing description: Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded circuit-breaker-testing analysis and validation preparation; triggers include 熔断器测试 and circuit-breaker-testing. --- # Circuit-Breaker Testing ## When to Use - Use this Skill when the work needs evidence-bounded analysis of closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback. - Use it when the input is incomplete but a reviewable first draft with assumptions and gaps is still useful. - Use it when static design evidence must remain separate from planned validation and completed execution. ## Output Format Options - Default to Markdown organized by risk, evidence, and priority. - If the user asks for a table, CSV, JSON, or ticket format, preserve the same finding fields and evidence states. - Confirm the schema, enum values, and required fields before feeding the output to automation. ## How to Use 1. Read prompts/circuit-breaker-testing.md and follow its input audit, coverage checklist, and output order. 2. Extract scope, environment, version, dependencies, constraints, success criteria, and available evidence. 3. Model closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback with scenarios and decision criteria, prioritizing high-impact or hard-to-detect items. 4. Separate facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions. 5. When information is missing, deliver a bounded draft and the smallest evidence-gathering actions; do not write recommendations as execution results. ## Reference Files - Read prompts/circuit-breaker-testing.md for every invocation; it is the complete execution contract. - Read evals/eval.yaml and the matching evals/cases/ when evaluating the Skill. - Read references/, examples/, scripts/, or output-formats.md only when the directory exists and the task needs it. ## Core Constraints - Analyze only closed, open, and half-open states, threshold evidence, recovery probes, and fallback; do not inject faults, access real dependencies, or call production systems. - Do not invent thresholds, availability, recovery times, vulnerability states, or completed test runs. - Mark unsupported claims as pending, blocked, or unassessed and provide a validation method. - Leave risk acceptance, release approval, and Human takeover to a Human. ## Delivery Self-Check - [ ] Complete the six-part input audit and mark evidence freshness. - [ ] Cover the circuit-breaker state, failure modes, expected concerns, and validation method. - [ ] Separate facts, inferences, recommendations, gaps, and Human decisions. - [ ] Do not turn static design or a dry-run into a claim of execution, passing, or release. ## Common Pitfalls - Treating adjacent performance, incident, or API analysis as a complete substitute for Circuit-Breaker Testing. - Listing steps without triggers, expected results, owner roles, or close conditions. - Refusing incomplete input, or filling critical facts with template assumptions. ## Best Practices - Start with the paths most likely to cause business loss or recovery failure. - Use the smallest isolated and reversible validation suggestion, with explicit stop conditions. - Make every conclusion reviewable by another engineer from its evidence and boundary.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.