Source profileQuality 91/100

VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/skills/frontend/frontend-testing-strategy-review/SKILL.md

frontend-testing-strategy-review

Reviews frontend test-pyramid shape, critical-path coverage, and flaky-test governance across unit, component, integration, and E2E layers (Vitest/Jest, Testing Library, Playwright/Cypress), loading framework references only when the task needs them.

Source repository stars
21
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-27
Source checked
2026-08-28

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Reviews frontend test-pyramid shape, critical-path coverage, and flaky-test governance across unit, component, integration, and E2E layers (Vitest/Jest, Testing Library, Playwright/Cypress), loading framework references only when the task needs them.

Best for

  • review or design a frontend test strategy across unit, component, integration, and E2E layers,
  • diagnose why a test suite is slow, flaky, or not catching regressions,
  • decide whether a given assertion belongs at the unit, component, or E2E layer,

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic --skill "skills/frontend/frontend-testing-strategy-review"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "frontend-testing-strategy-review" from https://github.com/VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/blob/e01b936730332eca271896571d43cc2013c67f3f/skills/frontend/frontend-testing-strategy-review/SKILL.md at commit e01b936730332eca271896571d43cc2013c67f3f. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Purpose

    A green CI badge does not prove a critical user journey works. This skill exists to separate "tests exist" from "tests exercise the actual failure modes that matter" — test-pyramid shape, critical-path coverage, and flaky-test governance — without dumping every testing-library's…

    A green CI badge does not prove a critical user journey works. This skill exists to separate "tests exist" from "tests exercise the actual failure modes that matter" — test-pyramid shape, critical-path coverage, and fla…
  2. 02

    When to use

    Use this skill when the user asks to:

    review or design a frontend test strategy across unit, component, integration, and E2E layers,diagnose why a test suite is slow, flaky, or not catching regressions,decide whether a given assertion belongs at the unit, component, or E2E layer,
  3. 03

    Context7 Documentation Protocol

    Test-runner and testing-library APIs (retry semantics, coverage-threshold config, query priority, selector strategy) change across majors and are documented, not folklore — never assert a flag, config shape, or "best practice" from memory.

    Call ToolSearch with query "context7" (or "select:mcpContext7resolve-library-id,mcpContext7query-docs") to load the Context7 tools if not already loaded in this session.Call mcpContext7resolve-library-id for the framework in question: /microsoft/playwright for Playwright, /vitest-dev/vitest for Vitest, /testing-library/testing-library-docs for Testing Library, /cypress-io/cypress-docum…Call mcpContext7query-docs for the specific claim in question — e.g. "coverage threshold configuration", "web-first assertion retry behavior", "getByRole query priority", "avoid fixed waits" — before stating it as fact.…
  4. 04

    Lean operating rules

    Classify the pyramid shape first (unit:component:E2E ratio, counted from actual test files/CI artifacts, not the user's description of it) before recommending any specific test; a shape problem needs a rebalancing plan,…

    Classify the pyramid shape first (unit:component:E2E ratio, counted from actual test files/CI artifacts, not the user's description of it) before recommending any specific test; a shape problem needs a rebalancing plan,…Treat coverage percentage as a weak signal; require evidence the suite asserts on error states, loading states, and accessibility tree for critical paths, not just the happy-path DOM. A file at 100% line coverage with n…Treat flaky-test quarantine (.skip, test.fixme, it.skip, describe.skip, Cypress {retries: N} used to paper over root cause) as a tracked liability with an owner and expiry, never a silent, permanent state.
  5. 05

    Response minimum

    the test-pyramid shape observed (unit/component/E2E counts or ratio, with the file/CI-artifact evidence it came from, not an estimate),

    the test-pyramid shape observed (unit/component/E2E counts or ratio, with the file/CI-artifact evidence it came from, not an estimate),critical-user-journey coverage gaps, cited to a specific file/line or CI-artifact,flaky-test inventory status for any .skip/fixme/retry-suppressed test found (owner, expiry, or "untracked liability"),

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score91/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars21SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic
Skill path
skills/frontend/frontend-testing-strategy-review/SKILL.md
Commit
e01b936730332eca271896571d43cc2013c67f3f
License
Apache-2.0
Collected
2026-08-28
Default branch
master
View the original SKILL.md

Frontend Testing Strategy Review

Purpose

A green CI badge does not prove a critical user journey works. This skill exists to separate "tests exist" from "tests exercise the actual failure modes that matter" — test-pyramid shape, critical-path coverage, and flaky-test governance — without dumping every testing-library's full API surface into every review.

When to use

Use this skill when the user asks to:

  • review or design a frontend test strategy across unit, component, integration, and E2E layers,
  • diagnose why a test suite is slow, flaky, or not catching regressions,
  • decide whether a given assertion belongs at the unit, component, or E2E layer,
  • audit critical-user-journey coverage (checkout, auth, forms) before a release,
  • evaluate a proposed test-framework migration (Jest to Vitest, Cypress to Playwright).

Context7 Documentation Protocol

Test-runner and testing-library APIs (retry semantics, coverage-threshold config, query priority, selector strategy) change across majors and are documented, not folklore — never assert a flag, config shape, or "best practice" from memory.

  1. Call ToolSearch with query "context7" (or "select:mcp__Context7__resolve-library-id,mcp__Context7__query-docs") to load the Context7 tools if not already loaded in this session.
  2. Call mcp__Context7__resolve-library-id for the framework in question: /microsoft/playwright for Playwright, /vitest-dev/vitest for Vitest, /testing-library/testing-library-docs for Testing Library, /cypress-io/cypress-documentation for Cypress. Prefer these resolved IDs over guessing a library name.
  3. Call mcp__Context7__query-docs for the specific claim in question — e.g. "coverage threshold configuration", "web-first assertion retry behavior", "getByRole query priority", "avoid fixed waits" — before stating it as fact. Do this per review, not once from a prior session's memory.
  4. Prefer the official docs URLs in official_docs for primary normative statements (e.g. exact CLI flags, exact config shape); use Context7 to ground and cross-check the claim before writing it into a finding.
  5. If Context7 is unavailable or returns no relevant match, fall back to the official_docs URLs and mark the claim documentation-based (Context7 unavailable) rather than presenting it as freshly verified.
  6. Never invent a config key, CLI flag, matcher name, or API method that no queried source confirms.

Lean operating rules

  • Classify the pyramid shape first (unit:component:E2E ratio, counted from actual test files/CI artifacts, not the user's description of it) before recommending any specific test; a shape problem needs a rebalancing plan, not one more test.
  • Treat coverage percentage as a weak signal; require evidence the suite asserts on error states, loading states, and accessibility tree for critical paths, not just the happy-path DOM. A file at 100% line coverage with no error-path assertion is not "well tested."
  • Treat flaky-test quarantine (.skip, test.fixme, it.skip, describe.skip, Cypress {retries: N} used to paper over root cause) as a tracked liability with an owner and expiry, never a silent, permanent state.
  • Prefer official, version-specific docs (via Context7) over memory for any framework API claim — Playwright, Vitest, Cypress, and Testing Library APIs and retry/wait semantics change across majors.
  • Never request or accept real user credentials, session cookies, or production API keys as test fixtures; require synthetic data or network mocking (MSW, cy.intercept, Playwright route interception).
  • Do not recommend a framework migration (Jest→Vitest, Cypress→Playwright) without a measured baseline (suite duration, ESM/native-TS support gap, current flake rate) and a rollback path; framework preference alone is not a migration justification.
  • Distinguish "flaky because of the test" (missing await, race on network mock, unstable selector) from "flaky because of the app" (real timing bug, unhandled async state) — the fix differs and misdiagnosis just hides a production bug behind a retry.
  • Load references only for the layer/framework in scope; do not load the Playwright reference for a pure Vitest unit-coverage question, and do not load the pyramid-shape reference for a single flaky-test triage.

References

Load these only when needed:

Response minimum

Return, at minimum:

  • the test-pyramid shape observed (unit/component/E2E counts or ratio, with the file/CI-artifact evidence it came from, not an estimate),
  • critical-user-journey coverage gaps, cited to a specific file/line or CI-artifact,
  • flaky-test inventory status for any .skip/fixme/retry-suppressed test found (owner, expiry, or "untracked liability"),
  • a minimal, prioritized diff-level test plan (not a full-suite rewrite),
  • evidence level (live evidence, repo evidence, documentation-based, inference) for every claim, and explicit flag when a claim is documentation-based (Context7 unavailable).

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the frontend-testing-strategy-review source document cover?

Reviews frontend test-pyramid shape, critical-path coverage, and flaky-test governance across unit, component, integration, and E2E layers (Vitest/Jest, Testing Library, Playwright/Cypress), loading framework references only when the task needs them.

How do I install frontend-testing-strategy-review?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic --skill "skills/frontend/frontend-testing-strategy-review". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 99241

enuno/unifi-mcp-server

unifi-mcp-tool-builder

Specialized guide for adding new MCP tools to the UniFi MCP Server following project standards, UniFi API patterns, and test-driven development practices. Use when implementing new UniFi Network Controller features as MCP tools.

Computed 973,094

samber/cc-skills-golang

golang-testing

Production-ready Golang tests — table-driven tests, testify suites and mocks, parallel tests, fuzzing, fixtures, goroutine leak detection with goleak, snapshot testing, code coverage, integration tests, idiomatic test naming. Use when writing or reviewing Go tests, choosing a testing approach, setting up Go test CI, or debugging flaky/slow tests. For testify-specific APIs see `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-stretchr-testify`; for measurement methodology see `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-benchm

Computed 97245

testdouble/han

plan-a-feature

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document al

Computed 9764

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills

python3-development

Use when building Python 3.11+ CLI apps (Typer/Rich), writing pytest test suites, fixing ruff linting or ty/mypy type errors, configuring pyproject.toml, creating portable scripts, or reviewing Python code. Activates on all Python implementation tasks — routes to specialist agents for CLI architecture, test design, packaging, and code review. Authoritative reference for modern Python 3.11-3.14 patterns and TDD workflows.