Agent skill

Integration E2E Testing

by shinpr in shinpr/claude-code-workflows

Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria.

MITAuto-check passedTesting & QA

Install Integration E2E Testing

skills CLI
$ npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill integration-e2e-testing -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install shinpr/claude-code-workflows integration-e2e-testing --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflows.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/integration-e2e-testing .claude/skills/integration-e2e-testing && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
integration-e2e-testing
GitHub stars
691
Token cost
~3.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,661 words
Files
2 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
30
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria.

  • Works in 3 steps: 2+ distinct interaction boundaries are… → State carries across steps — data… → The journey has a completion point — a…
  • Designing integration tests
  • SKILL.md covers References, Test Type Definition and…, Behavior-First Principle and ROI Calculation, plus 6 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Integration E2E Testing is an agent skill from shinpr/claude-code-workflows. Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria. Use when designing integration tests, E2E tests, or reviewing test quality.

Its SKILL.md is about 3.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 2 other files, including reference files (for example `references/e2e-design.md`).

It sits in Testing & QA, covering End-to-end testing and Integration testing. The repository describes itself as: Development workflows for Claude Code that keep broad exploration focused on the outcome you approved. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Designing integration tests
  • Reviewing test quality

Example prompts

  • “/integration-e2e-testing”

Workflow steps

3 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. 2+ distinct interaction boundaries are traversed in sequence to complete a user goal. What counts as a boundary depends on the system type
  2. State carries across steps — data produced or actions taken in one step affect what the next step accepts or displays
  3. The journey has a completion point — a final state the user or caller reaches (e.g., confirmation page, saved record, API success…

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit a4ecd62. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Integration E2E Testing loads about 3.5k tokens when it runs, and up to ~5k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 53 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,661 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~53
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.5k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from shinpr/claude-code-workflows at commit a4ecd62, republished under its MIT licence (© shinpr). 1,661 words, ~3,500 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/integration-e2e-testing/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
integration-e2e-testing
description
Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria. Use when designing integration tests, E2E tests, or reviewing test quality.

Integration and E2E Testing Principles

References

E2E test design: See references/e2e-design.md for UI Spec-driven E2E test candidate selection and browser test architecture. The reference uses Playwright as the default browser harness; substitute the project's standard when different.

Test Type Definition and Standard Budgets

Test TypePurposeScopeExternal DepsStandard Budget per Input Design DocImplementation Timing
IntegrationVerify component interactions in-processPartial system integration (in-process modules; for UI components, the framework's in-process renderer e.g., RTL+MSW for React/TS)Mocked or in-processMAX 3Created alongside implementation
fixture-e2eVerify UI behavior in a browser with deterministic fixturesFull UI flow with mocked backend / fixture-driven stateMocked / fixture only — no live servicesMAX 3Created alongside the UI feature
service-integration-e2eVerify critical user journeys against a running local stackFull system across servicesLive local services or stubsMAX 1-2Earliest task where the proof boundary and required services are executable

Lane selection (E2E only):

  • Default lane for user-facing UI journeys is fixture-e2e — it runs a real browser against deterministic fixtures, catches the bugs that unit/integration tests miss (button no-op, state never updates, navigation breaks), and runs in CI without infrastructure setup
  • Add service-integration-e2e only when the journey's correctness depends on real cross-service behavior (data persistence, transactional consistency, external service contracts) that cannot be faked safely

One input Design Doc is one budget scope: apply each lane budget once across all ACs and candidates in that document. The two E2E lanes are budgeted independently — having a fixture-e2e for a journey does not consume the service-integration-e2e budget and vice versa. Treat the numbers above as enforced standard budgets. Exceed a budget only when an accepted requirement or a distinct failure mode cannot be proved by a selected test; annotate that exception and why consolidation cannot cover it.

Behavior-First Principle

Include (High ROI)
  • Business logic correctness (calculations, state transitions, data transformations)
  • Data integrity and persistence behavior
  • User-visible functionality completeness
  • Error handling behavior (what user sees/experiences)
Redirect to Other Test Types
  • External service connections → Verify via contract/interface tests
  • Performance metrics → Verify via dedicated load testing
  • Implementation details → Verify observable behavior instead
  • UI layout specifics → Verify information availability instead

Principle: Test = User-observable behavior verifiable in isolated CI environment

ROI Calculation

ROI is used to rank candidates within the same test type (integration candidates against each other, E2E candidates against each other). Cross-type comparison is unnecessary because integration and E2E budgets are selected independently.

For every candidate, record the governing evidence for each ROI input before assigning a value. Use an approved PRD, confirmed requirement context, accepted contract or legal obligation, user-confirmed test value context, Design Doc boundary, and existing-test evidence as applicable. A missing value is unknown, not 0, and an inference is not observed evidence.

When ROI can change candidate ranking, a lane threshold, or budget selection, return the exact missing product input and its decision effect when test_value_context has not yet supplied it. After that single input round, apply the supplied facts and retain every remaining value as decision-relevant unknown with its numeric score unset. Resolve Defect Detection from repository evidence at the proof boundary and in existing tests. When selection is invariant because the candidate is removed before ROI, is the sole eligible candidate for a reserved journey slot, or all surviving candidates fit an unthresholded budget, record the unknown as not_decision_relevant and keep its numeric score unset.

Unknown-Value Ordering

For candidates with a decision-relevant unknown after the value-input round, use accepted legal or contractual obligation, explicit connection to the confirmed user or business outcome, distinct Defect Detection evidence, lower lane ownership cost, then source AC order. Select the smallest set that proves the accepted obligations and confirmed outcome boundaries, within the normal lane budgets. Numeric lane thresholds apply to fully scored candidates; this evidence ordering supplies the selection decision for affected candidates. Record the unknown input, evidence checked, and selection effect.

For resolved numeric inputs, use exactly 0, 5, or 10. Legal Requirement remains boolean; a governing-source check that finds no accepted legal, regulatory, contractual, or audit obligation supports false and records that checked source.

InputScale
Business Value0 = no user/business outcome; 5 = meaningful but non-critical outcome; 10 = core, revenue, safety, or data-integrity outcome
User Frequency0 = unreachable/obsolete; 5 = regular subset of users or runs; 10 = dominant journey or execution path
Legal Requirementtrue only when an accepted legal, regulatory, contractual, or audit requirement applies; otherwise false
Defect Detection0 = duplicates existing proof; 5 = covers a distinct branch/state; 10 = uniquely detects a critical boundary or cross-service failure
ROI Score = Business Value × User Frequency + Legal Requirement × 10 + Defect Detection
              (range: 0–120)

Higher ROI Score = higher priority within its test type. For equal scores, order by Legal Requirement (true first), then higher Defect Detection, Business Value, User Frequency, and finally source AC order. No normalization or capping is applied — the raw score is used directly for ranking. Deduplication is a separate step that removes candidates entirely; it does not modify scores.

ROI Thresholds by Lane

The two E2E lanes have different ownership costs and use independent standard thresholds.

LaneROI thresholdRationale
fixture-e2eROI ≥ 20 (beyond reserved slot)Cost is comparable to integration tests once the harness exists; the floor avoids filling MAX 3 with low-signal tests when fewer would suffice
service-integration-e2eROI > 50 (beyond reserved slot)Live-service setup, state cleanup, and failure diagnosis add material ownership cost; reserve for journeys whose value cannot be proven any other way

Reserved slot rules (see Multi-Step User Journey Definition below) apply per lane and override the threshold (the reserved candidate is emitted regardless of its ROI score). Emit a below-floor candidate beyond the reserved slot only when an accepted requirement or a distinct uncovered failure mode justifies the exception. Leave budget intentionally unfilled rather than padding with low-value tests; record any threshold or budget exception in the skeleton that carries the exception.

Show full SKILL.md (707 more words)Show less
ROI Calculation Examples
ScenarioBVFreqLegalDefectROI ScoreTest TypeSelection Outcome
Core checkout UI flow1010true10120fixture-e2eSelected (reserved slot: user-facing multi-step journey, browser-level verification with fixtures)
Core checkout against live payment service1010true10120service-integration-e2eSelected (real-service correctness above ROI threshold)
Dismiss button updates UI state510false555fixture-e2eSelected (rank 2 of 3 fixture-e2e budget)
Payment error message display55false530fixture-e2eSelected (rank 3 of 3 fixture-e2e budget)
Optional filter toggle55false025fixture-e2eRemoved during deduplication (duplicates existing proof)
Payment retry against real provider55false530service-integration-e2eBelow ROI threshold (30 < 50), not selected
DB persistence check105false1060IntegrationSelected (rank 1 of 3)
Pure data transformation55false530UnitNot selected (push down to unit test)

Multi-Step User Journey Definition

A candidate qualifies as a multi-step user journey when ALL of the following are true:

  1. 2+ distinct interaction boundaries are traversed in sequence to complete a user goal. What counts as a boundary depends on the system type:
    • Web: distinct routes/pages
    • Mobile native: distinct screens/views
    • CLI: distinct command invocations or interactive prompts
    • API: distinct API calls forming a transaction (e.g., create → confirm → finalize)
  2. State carries across steps — data produced or actions taken in one step affect what the next step accepts or displays
  3. The journey has a completion point — a final state the user or caller reaches (e.g., confirmation page, saved record, API success response, completed workflow)
User-Facing vs Service-Internal Journeys

Multi-step journeys are classified for reserved-slot eligibility:

ClassificationConditionReserved Slot EligibilityExample
User-facingA human user directly triggers and observes the steps (via UI, CLI, or direct API interaction)Eligible — defaults to fixture-e2e reserved slot. Add a service-integration-e2e reserved slot only when the journey's correctness depends on real cross-service behaviorWeb checkout flow, CLI setup wizard, mobile onboarding
Service-internalSteps are triggered by backend services without direct user interactionNot eligible for reserved slot — use integration tests. Service-integration-e2e through normal ROI > 50 path is still valid when full-system verification is warrantedAsync job pipeline, service-to-service saga, scheduled batch processing

This classification applies only to the reserved-slot rule and the E2E Gap Check. Other selection follows lane-specific ROI rules above.

Use this definition when evaluating E2E test candidates and E2E gap detection.

Test Skeleton Specification

Required Comment Patterns

Each test MUST include the following annotations:

AC: [Original acceptance criteria text]
Behavior: [Trigger] → [Process] → [Observable Result]
@category: core-functionality | integration | edge-case | fixture-e2e | service-integration-e2e
@lane: integration | fixture-e2e | service-integration-e2e
@dependency: none | [component names] | full-system
@complexity: low | medium | high
ROI: [score]

@lane selection rule:

  • integration — Component interaction in-process, no browser (e.g., RTL+MSW for React/TS, in-process module/handler integration in any language)
  • fixture-e2e — Browser-level UI verification with mocked backend / fixture-driven state
  • service-integration-e2e — Browser-level or end-to-end verification against running local services or stubs

Use the project's comment syntax to wrap these annotations (e.g., // for C-family, # for Python/Ruby/Shell).

Verification Items (Optional)

When verification points need explicit enumeration:

Verification items:
- [Item 1]
- [Item 2]

EARS Format Mapping

EARS KeywordTest TypeGeneration Approach
WhenEvent-drivenTrigger event → verify outcome
WhileState conditionSetup state → verify behavior
If-thenBranch coverageBoth condition paths verified
(none)Basic functionalityDirect invocation → verify result

Test File Naming Convention

  • Integration tests: *.int.test.* or *.integration.test.*
  • fixture-e2e tests: *.fixture.e2e.test.* (or organize under tests/e2e/fixture/)
  • service-integration-e2e tests: *.service.e2e.test.* (or organize under tests/e2e/service/)

The test runner or framework in the project determines the appropriate file extension. Repos that already use a single *.e2e.test.* convention may keep it as long as each file declares @lane: in its header — the lane annotation is the source of truth for routing and budget accounting.

Review Criteria

Skeleton and Implementation Consistency
CheckFailure Condition
Behavior VerificationNo assertion for "observable result" in the implemented test
Verification Item CoverageListed items not all covered by assertions
Mock BoundaryInternal components mocked in integration test
Implementation Quality
CheckFailure Condition
AAA StructureArrange/Act/Assert separation unclear
IndependenceState sharing between tests, order dependency
ReproducibilityDate/random dependency, varying results
ReadabilityTest name doesn't match verification content
Route Parity for Shared Mutations

When multiple routes reach the same mutation, compare validation, classification, resource bounds, and read/parse/mutation/reporting order. Each difference requires an authoritative requirement, design contract, or explicit test claim; otherwise require a test exposing the bypass or inconsistent outcome.

Quality Standards

Required
  • Each test verifies one behavior
  • Clear AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert) structure
  • No test interdependencies
  • Deterministic execution

© shinpr, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 1 other file (references) in skills/integration-e2e-testing of shinpr/claude-code-workflows.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/e2e-design.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit a4ecd62

Compare with similar skills

Integration E2E Testing next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Integration E2E Testing compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Integration E2E Testing this skillshinpr/claude-code-workflows691—~3.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Add Acceptance Testtalkincode/toughradius691—~827Automated safety check: PassMIT
Integration E2E Testingshinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplate232—~2.8kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Migrate E2E To Integrationopenshift/oc-mirror124—~1.5kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Om Integration Testsgo-musicfox/go-musicfox2.6k1 repos~3.6kAutomated safety check: NotesGPL-3.0
Test Collaborationqshanx/docs-governance132—~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Add Acceptance Test

    talkincode/toughradius

    Write CI-executable acceptance/integration tests for protocol or end-to-end changes (TR-F022).

    691 GitHub stars~827 tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Testing & QAAuto-check passed
  • Integration E2E Testing

    shinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplate

    Selects and designs the smallest integration/E2E test set that proves accepted behavior at an observable boundary.

    232 GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 4 days ago
    Testing & QAAuto-check passed
  • Migrate E2E To Integration

    openshift/oc-mirror

    Migrate an oc-mirror e2e test case to the integration test suite, translating framework, registry, invocation, and assertion patterns

    124 GitHub stars~1.5k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Testing & QAAuto-check passed
  • Om Integration Tests

    go-musicfox/go-musicfox

    Run and create integration/E2E tests by exploring the live app with the configured browser provider, preserving repository-native runners, reusing the shared test environment, and diagnosing…

    2.6k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~3.6k tokens
    Testing & QAAuto-check: notes
  • Test Collaboration

    qshanx/docs-governance

    盘点并维护项目测试资产,把需求、业务规则、风险、Bug 和跨端接口契约转成 TEST-ID 与可验证证据,生成或更新 TESTS.md。用于测试资产盘点、测试缺口分析、单元/集成/契约/E2E/冒烟分类、Bug 回归保护、前后端或多服务基于同一契约的消费者/提供者测试、测试必要性判断、测试清单维护与交付前测试证据审查。中文触发:测试盘点、测试清单、测试资产、测试缺口、测试必要性、Bug…

    132 GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Testing & QAAuto-check passed
  • Patrol E2E Testing

    evanca/flutter-ai-rules

    A skill your agent uses when writing E2E/integration tests, testing native interactions like permissions or system dialogs, capturing UI regressions, or validating cross-platform behavior (Patrol…

    649 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Testing & QAAuto-check passed

More from shinpr/claude-code-workflows

All 30 skills in this repo
  • AI Development Guide

    shinpr/claude-code-workflows

    Applies language-agnostic and backend technical decision criteria, anti-pattern detection, debugging, and quality gates.

    691 GitHub stars~3.9k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Frontend AI Guide

    shinpr/claude-code-workflows

    Applies React/TypeScript-specific technical decision criteria, anti-pattern detection, debugging, and frontend quality gates.

    691 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Implementation Approach

    shinpr/claude-code-workflows

    Implementation strategy selection framework. An agent skill from shinpr/claude-code-workflows.

    691 GitHub stars~2.6k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Recipe Quality Profile

    shinpr/claude-code-workflows

    Proposes repository-specific quality policy for implementation and review and, after confirmation, creates or updates docs/project-context/quality.yaml.

    691 GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Subagents Orchestration Guide

    shinpr/claude-code-workflows

    Guides subagent coordination through implementation workflows.

    691 GitHub stars~9.3k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Coding Principles

    shinpr/claude-code-workflows

    Language-agnostic coding principles for maintainability, readability, and quality.

    691 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Integration E2E Testing

What does Integration E2E Testing do?

Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria. Integration E2E Testing is an agent skill from shinpr/claude-code-workflows. Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria.

When should I use Integration E2E Testing?

Integration E2E Testing fits situations like: designing integration tests; reviewing test quality.

How do I install Integration E2E Testing in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill integration-e2e-testing -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/integration-e2e-testing in shinpr/claude-code-workflows) into .claude/skills/integration-e2e-testing in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Integration E2E Testing in Codex?

Run `npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill integration-e2e-testing -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/integration-e2e-testing in shinpr/claude-code-workflows) into .agents/skills/integration-e2e-testing in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Integration E2E Testing in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill integration-e2e-testing -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/integration-e2e-testing, .gemini/skills/integration-e2e-testing, .github/skills/integration-e2e-testing and .opencode/skills/integration-e2e-testing in your project.

What does Integration E2E Testing need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Integration E2E Testing is instructions for the agent only.

Does Integration E2E Testing access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Integration E2E Testing safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Integration E2E Testing use?

Integration E2E Testing is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Integration E2E Testing use?

About 3.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 14k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 1.5k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Integration E2E Testing?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Integration E2E Testing: Add Acceptance Test (talkincode/toughradius, 691 stars), Integration E2E Testing (shinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplate, 232 stars), Migrate E2E To Integration (openshift/oc-mirror, 124 stars) and Om Integration Tests (go-musicfox/go-musicfox, 2.6k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Integration E2E Testing?

shinpr (a GitHub user) maintains it in shinpr/claude-code-workflows, which has 691 GitHub stars. The repository holds 30 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 1, 2026.

Source: shinpr/claude-code-workflows on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.