quick-question

分类: 测试与安全 | 上传者: tykisgod | 下载: 0 | 版本: v1.0（最新）
针对当前更改编写 Unity EditMode、PlayMode 或回归测试，而不将其与测试执行混为一谈。
更新日志: Source: GitHub https://github.com/tykisgod/quick-question
目录结构

当前层级: tree/main/skills/add-tests/
📄 SKILL.md 4.6 KB
SKILL.md

---
description: "Author Unity EditMode, PlayMode, or regression tests for the current change without conflating that with test execution."
---

Respond in the user's preferred language (detect from their recent messages, or fall back to the language setting in CLAUDE.md).

Add or update Unity tests for the current change. This skill is for **writing tests**, not for running them. After authoring coverage, hand off to `/qq:test`.

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
- A file path, symbol, bug description, or plan step that needs coverage
- `editmode` / `edit`: force EditMode coverage
- `playmode` / `play`: force PlayMode coverage
- `regression`: force the smallest regression-focused test
- `--assembly "Asm.Tests"`: prefer a specific test assembly
- `--auto`: skip prompts and continue into `/qq:test --auto` after tests are written

## 0. Read qq project state first when available

If `./scripts/qq-project-state.py` exists, read it before choosing scope:

```bash
python3 ./scripts/qq-project-state.py --pretty
```

Use it for:

- `work_mode` and `policy_profile` to understand expected verification pressure
- `changed_runtime_files` to identify the code under test when the user did not specify a target
- `last_test_status` to understand whether coverage is missing vs. failing

Rules:

- Explicit user scope always wins
- Prefer the smallest meaningful coverage for the current task
- Do not turn this into a whole-project test rewrite

## 1. Determine the target

Pick scope in this order:

1. Explicit user input (file path, bug description, plan step, or test type)
2. A known failing bug / regression path from the current conversation
3. The active implementation plan step and its done criteria
4. Current uncommitted runtime changes
5. Ask the user one concise question if the target is still ambiguous

When the input is broad, narrow it:

- one system over the whole feature
- one regression path over a full suite rewrite
- one test assembly over new scattered files

## 2. Inspect the existing test layout

Before writing tests:

- read existing test files near the code under test
- inspect any nearby test `.asmdef` files
- reuse existing helpers, fixtures, scene setup, and naming patterns
- prefer extending an existing test file when it keeps the suite coherent

If no tests exist yet, create the smallest conventional home that fits the repo:

- `Assets/Tests/EditMode/` for pure logic or editor-side behavior
- `Assets/Tests/PlayMode/` for scene/lifecycle/integration behavior

## 3. Choose the right test kind

- **EditMode**: pure logic, data transforms, orchestration, deterministic calculations, and code that does not need scene frames to prove correctness
- **PlayMode**: MonoBehaviour lifecycle, scene wiring, frame progression, physics, animation, or behavior that only makes sense in play
- **Regression**: the smallest test that proves a bug stays fixed; prefer this for `fix` mode when feasible

If the user did not force a mode, choose the lightest mode that still proves the behavior.

## 4. Write the tests

Author the smallest useful coverage:

- cover the intended behavior, not every branch in the file
- add the highest-risk edge case or regression assertion
- avoid tests that merely duplicate production implementation line by line
- keep setup minimal; extract helpers only when repetition is real
- if adding a new test assembly, keep references minimal and consistent with repo conventions

When this work is tied to a bug fix:

- prefer writing the regression first when the repro is clear
- if the current architecture makes the repro impossible to express cleanly, state that explicitly and write the next-best narrow guardrail

## 5. Stop at authored coverage

By default, this skill stops after the test files are written.

- Summarize which files changed
- State which behavior is now covered
- Recommend the exact `/qq:test` command to run next, using `editmode`, `playmode`, `--assembly`, or `--filter` when that would keep validation narrow

**`--auto` mode:** after writing the tests, continue directly to `/qq:test --auto` with the narrowest appropriate scope.

## Handoff

- **Tests authored cleanly** → "Coverage is in place. Want to run `/qq:test` now?"
- **Tests authored in `--auto` mode** → continue to `/qq:test --auto`
- **Blocked by ambiguous expected behavior** → ask one short question before writing more code

## Notes

- Keep `/qq:add-tests` separate from `/qq:test`; one authors coverage, the other executes it
- Prefer modifying existing test files over spawning a brand-new structure for every change
- If a plan already contains a Tests step, implement that step here instead of inventing a different coverage target
登录后下载/点赞/收藏 ❤ 5 | ★ 0
quick-question

目录结构

SKILL.md

举报内容

提示
