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.

LLM Mart · 0 points · 0 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download naodeng-awesome-qa-skills-skills_en_testing-types_circuit-breaker-testing-c44b892.zip · 6 KB
Part of naodeng/awesome-qa-skills — 97 skills

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

  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.
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.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related