Files
pixelheros/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/utility/onboard.md
2026-05-15 14:52:29 +08:00

6.2 KiB

Skill Test Spec: /onboard

Skill Summary

/onboard generates a contextual project onboarding summary tailored for a new team member. It reads CLAUDE.md, technical-preferences.md, the active sprint file, recent git commits, and production/stage.txt to produce a structured orientation document. The skill runs on the Haiku model (read-only, formatting task) and produces no file writes — all output is conversational.

The skill optionally accepts a role argument (e.g., /onboard artist) to tailor the summary to a specific discipline. When the project is in an early stage or unconfigured, the output adapts to reflect what little is known. The verdict is always ONBOARDING COMPLETE — the skill is purely informational.


Static Assertions (Structural)

Verified automatically by /skill-test static — no fixture needed.

  • Has required frontmatter fields: name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
  • Has ≥2 phase headings
  • Contains verdict keyword: ONBOARDING COMPLETE
  • Does NOT contain "May I write" language (skill is read-only)
  • Has a next-step handoff suggesting a relevant follow-on skill

Director Gate Checks

None. /onboard is a read-only orientation skill. No director gates apply.


Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — Configured project in Production stage with active sprint

Fixture:

  • production/stage.txt contains Production
  • technical-preferences.md has engine, language, and specialists populated
  • production/sprints/sprint-005.md exists with stories in progress
  • Git log contains 5 recent commits

Input: /onboard

Expected behavior:

  1. Skill reads stage.txt, technical-preferences.md, active sprint, and git log
  2. Skill produces an onboarding summary with sections: Project Overview, Tech Stack, Current Stage, Active Sprint Summary, Recent Activity
  3. Summary is formatted for readability (headers, bullet points)
  4. Next-step suggestions are appropriate for Production stage (e.g., /sprint-status, /dev-story)
  5. Verdict ONBOARDING COMPLETE is stated

Assertions:

  • Output includes current stage name from stage.txt
  • Output includes engine and language from technical-preferences.md
  • Active sprint stories are summarized (not just the sprint file name)
  • Recent commit context is present
  • Verdict is ONBOARDING COMPLETE
  • No files are written

Case 2: Fresh Project — No engine, no sprint, suggests /start

Fixture:

  • technical-preferences.md contains only placeholders ([TO BE CONFIGURED])
  • No production/stage.txt
  • No sprint files
  • No CLAUDE.md overrides beyond defaults

Input: /onboard

Expected behavior:

  1. Skill reads all config files and detects unconfigured state
  2. Skill produces a minimal summary: "This project has not been configured yet"
  3. Output explains the onboarding workflow: /start/setup-engine/brainstorm
  4. Skill suggests running /start as the immediate next step
  5. Verdict is ONBOARDING COMPLETE (informational, not a failure)

Assertions:

  • Output explicitly mentions the project is not yet configured
  • /start is recommended as the next step
  • Skill does NOT error out — it gracefully handles an empty project state
  • Verdict is still ONBOARDING COMPLETE

Case 3: No CLAUDE.md Found — Error with remediation

Fixture:

  • CLAUDE.md file does not exist (deleted or never created)
  • All other files may or may not exist

Input: /onboard

Expected behavior:

  1. Skill attempts to read CLAUDE.md and fails
  2. Skill outputs an error: "CLAUDE.md not found — cannot generate onboarding summary"
  3. Skill provides remediation: "Run /start to initialize the project configuration"
  4. No partial summary is generated

Assertions:

  • Error message clearly identifies the missing file as CLAUDE.md
  • Remediation step (/start) is explicitly named
  • Skill does NOT produce a partial output when the root config is missing
  • Verdict is ONBOARDING COMPLETE (with error context, not a crash)

Case 4: Role-Specific Onboarding — User specifies "artist" role

Fixture:

  • Fully configured project in Production stage
  • art-bible.md exists in design/
  • Active sprint has visual story types (animation, VFX)

Input: /onboard artist

Expected behavior:

  1. Skill reads all standard files plus any art-relevant docs (art bible, asset specs)
  2. Summary is tailored to the artist role: art bible overview, asset pipeline, current visual stories in the active sprint
  3. Technical architecture details (code structure, ADRs) are de-emphasized
  4. Specialist agents for art/audio are highlighted in the summary
  5. Verdict is ONBOARDING COMPLETE

Assertions:

  • Role argument is acknowledged in the output ("Onboarding for: Artist")
  • Art bible summary is included if the file exists
  • Current visual stories from the active sprint are shown
  • Technical implementation details are not the primary focus
  • Verdict is ONBOARDING COMPLETE

Case 5: Director Gate Check — No gate; onboard is read-only orientation

Fixture:

  • Any configured project state

Input: /onboard

Expected behavior:

  1. Skill completes the full onboarding summary
  2. No director agents are spawned at any point
  3. No gate IDs appear in the output
  4. No "May I write" prompts appear

Assertions:

  • No director gate is invoked
  • No write tool is called
  • No gate skip messages appear
  • Verdict is ONBOARDING COMPLETE without any gate check

Protocol Compliance

  • Reads all source files before generating output (no hallucinated project state)
  • Adapts output to project stage (Production ≠ Concept)
  • Respects role argument when provided
  • Does not write any files
  • Ends with ONBOARDING COMPLETE verdict in all paths

Coverage Notes

  • The case where technical-preferences.md is missing entirely (as opposed to having placeholders) is not separately tested; behavior follows the graceful error pattern of Case 3.
  • Git history reading is assumed available; offline/no-git scenarios are not tested here.
  • Discipline roles beyond "artist" (e.g., programmer, designer, producer) follow the same tailoring pattern as Case 4 and are not separately tested.