From the author
Use when the user wants to know if something works — the answer requires running code, not analyzing it. Output is a verdict backed by evidence: passed, failed, or broken. Primary triggers: 'run the tests', 'does X still work after my change?', 'did the merge break anything?', 'verify the fix worked', 'check if the endpoint returns X', 'confirm nothing regressed', 'run tests/unit/test_foo.py', 'let me know the results', 'make sure my changes didn't break anything'. Hard stops — do NOT use for: reviewing test code for quality/coverage gaps, debugging why test infrastructure/databases/seed scripts are misbehaving, writing or fixing tests, diagnosing root causes of unexpected behavior. The deciding question: is the user asking for the result of executing something, or asking for help understanding/analyzing/improving something? If it's the latter, use diagnose or review-code instead.
Install
npx skills add avibebuilder/claude-prime --skill test -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/test/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
Byte-identical to the scanned commit, with the repository’s licence and a SOURCE.txt.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 79
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- review-testingposit-dev/skillsReview test code for quality, design, and completeness after implementing a feature or fixing a bug. Use when the user asks to "review my tests", "check my test quality", "are these tests good enough", "review testing", or after completing a feature implementation that includes tests. Also use when tests feel brittle, flaky, or superficial. Cross-references production code to find coverage gaps.Testing★ 547
- code-testingdotnet/skillsALWAYS USE for test work that requires changes: write, add, generate, repair, or strengthen tests for existing code in xUnit, MSTest, NUnit, pytest, Vitest/Jest, Go, or another framework. Includes regression cases, failing or flaky tests, coverage-driven additions, and audit-then-fix requests. Focused work stays direct; broad or multi-stage work invokes test-engineer. DO NOT USE for only running tests, analysis-only audits, framework/platform migrations, a test blocked on a missing production seam (testability-obstacle), or MSTest API/configuration corrections that do not design new cases (writing-mstest-tests). Within an active test-engineer pipeline, reuse supplied guidance and do not re-enter this skill.Testing★ 5.7K
- Testing CodeMicrock/ordinary-claude-skillsWrite automated tests for features, validate functionality against acceptance criteria, and ensure code coverage. Use when writing test code, verifying functionality, or adding test coverage to existing code.Testing★ 407
- fixavibebuilder/claude-primeFix bugs and broken behavior when there is enough evidence to act on a repair path. Use for errors, crashes, incorrect results, API failures (500, 404, 403), CORS problems, database exceptions, broken rendering, duplicated or wrong data, off-by-one mistakes, timezone/date bugs, broken forms, config-caused runtime failures, and regressions. Trigger when the user wants the bug repaired and the conversation already contains a clear failing area, a reproducible failing test, a concrete error path, or a prior diagnosis to implement. Do NOT use for new features, pure explanation, architecture discussion, broad research, or bug reports where the main need is figuring out why the behavior happens — use diagnose for that.Testing★ 120
- testingseb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skillsGenerate, execute, and analyze tests for codebases, covering unit, integration, and end-to-end testing with coverage reporting. Use when the user requests testing or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.Testing★ 228
- review-codetobihagemann/turboReview code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", "find redundant tests", or "review test coverage".Engineering★ 416
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in