AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Agf Running Sit Tests

skill-pcliangx-appgenesisforge-agf-running-sit-tests · by pcliangx

Use when an execution-layer dev (frontend-dev / backend-dev / ai-agent-dev / ml-engineer / miniapp-dev) has finished feature code + Unit tests and is about to enter code-review. Provides the SIT scope, environment, AC-driven integration walk, and evidence sink (progress/<role>.md). SIT is now a dev-owned step, not a separate QA stage.

No reviews yet
0 installs
38 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-pcliangx-appgenesisforge-agf-running-sit-tests

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access Used
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets Used
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-pcliangx-appgenesisforge-agf-running-sit-tests)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
2mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Agf Running Sit Tests? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Running System Integration Tests (SIT)

Use this skill when:

  • A dev finished feature code + Unit tests and is about to enter code-review
  • A dev needs to verify a fix doesn't regress integration (API ↔ DB ↔ external)

What SIT is — and is not

SIT verifies that independently-developed components compose correctly — frontend ↔ backend ↔ DB ↔ external services. It is NOT:

  • Unit tests (already covered by pytest / vitest on the branch before SIT)
  • E2E tests (real browser + real user journey — run downstream after code-review)
  • UAT (business owner final sign-off — product-lead drives, downstream of E2E)

You just wrote the Unit tests, so you have the clearest picture of the unit-vs-integration boundary. If a failure reproduces by running just the backend unit tests with mocks, it's a unit-level miss, not a SIT finding; fold it back into the unit suite rather than writing it up as a SIT defect.

Pre-conditions

  • [ ] Feature branch is rebased onto main
  • [ ] All Unit tests passing on the branch (pytest / vitest green) + lint + typecheck green
  • [ ] PRD acceptance criteria (AC) accessible at docs/prd/[feature]-[date].md
  • [ ] .env.local with SIT-mode flags configured (or .env.sit if a dedicated SIT config exists)
  • [ ] 前端 SIT 专属:MSW mock 来自 orval 生成产物(*.msw.ts),非手写——mock 与 OpenAPI 契约同源(见 ADR-006 / coding.md 契约纪律)

If any precondition fails: SendMessage product-lead, do not proceed.

Environment

Default SIT environment is local docker-compose:

# from repo root
docker compose up -d postgres
pnpm install                              # frontend deps
python -m pip install -r backend/requirements.txt
alembic upgrade head                      # apply latest schema
pnpm --filter frontend dev &              # frontend on 5173
python -m uvicorn app.main:app --reload & # backend on 8000

For LLM-dependent features, set provider env vars per agf-wiring-multi-llm-sdk skill. Use a dedicated SIT API key with a hard daily spend cap so a runaway test doesn't drain the budget.

Execution sequence

Walk every AC from docs/prd/[feature].md. For each AC at the integration layer:

  1. Setup — record exact starting state (DB rows / fixture / user logged in)
  2. Action — step-by-step what triggers the integration (frontend button click → API call → DB write → external service callback)
  3. Expected — copy the AC verbatim
  4. Actual — capture HTTP status, response body excerpt, DB row diff, log lines
  5. Verdict — Pass / Fail / Blocked (with reason)

> Verify, don't assume. Don't write "Passed" because the code looks right. Run the action, capture the actual response, compare. Per .claude/standards/coding.md "Verify before assert" — paste the actual command output into the progress entry.

Evidence collection

For each AC verdict:

  • HTTP responses: curl -i output or browser DevTools Network export
  • DB state changes: psql -c "SELECT ..." before/after dumps
  • Logs: relevant lines from backend console + frontend console
  • Screenshots: only when UI behavior is the subject of the AC

Keep evidence inline in the **SIT 证据** section of progress/.md (small payloads). Large/binary artifacts → store under progress/evidence/[feature]/ and reference by path.

Evidence Output

SIT no longer produces a standalone report under docs/qa/. All evidence lives in progress/.md under the **SIT 证据** section of the task entry — pass = single AC-tagged line (✅ AC-N (integration): ), fail/blocked expands命令 + 输出 + 偏差.

Format authority: .claude/standards/ac-lifecycle.md完整条目格式 (5-section format 状态 / Skills / SIT 证据 / 质量门 / 下一步 + the **SIT 证据** block rules). The progress file is archived into docs/qa/[feature]-process-log.md after UAT sign-off (product-lead), so SIT evidence survives without a separate report artifact.

Hand-off

完成 SIT 自跑后,先自检再报告——跑 bash .claude/scripts/agf-sit-precheck.sh progress/.md 机筛 placeholder / 漏证据 / pass 含失败 token / 质量门矛盾(advisory,不阻断),把 flag 的修掉再 SendMessage,省一轮 code-review 打回(同一脚本是 code-reviewer 的 SIT Audit step 0,ADR-011 决策 2)。然后:

  • All AC pass: SendMessage product-lead — "Implementation + SIT done, ready for code-review",引用 progress/.md 条目路径 + 时间戳
  • Some AC fail / blocked: 仍写完 progress/.md 的 SIT 段(如实记录 fail / blocked),但 SendMessage 写明阻塞原因与影响范围,由 product-lead 决定本轮是否就修
  • 不再直接 SendMessage 下游 QA 角色(已不参与 SIT);E2E 由 product-lead 在 code-review (含 SIT Audit) 通过后单独启动

Anti-patterns

  • ❌ Marking AC as Pass without actually triggering the action
  • ❌ Skipping ACs because "they look obviously fine"
  • ❌ Lumping multiple ACs into one "Passed all" line — every AC needs its own verdict + evidence
  • ❌ Running SIT against a stale environment (forgot to apply migrations / restart server)
  • ❌ Using production API keys for SIT
  • ❌ Skipping SIT to ship faster — code-reviewer will reject the SIT Audit (see .claude/agents/code-reviewer.md "SIT Audit" section) and you'll be sent back
  • ❌ Treating a missing unit test as a SIT defect — fold it back into the unit suite, don't smuggle it through integration

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.