SKILL DETAIL
AI Safety Testing
Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions; triggers include AI 安全 and AI safety.
StatusStable
TypeAtomic Skill
DomainSoftware testing
SDLCTest design
Good forQA / DEV
LanguageChinese / English
EvalsEvals ✓
Synced2026-09-15
Why this Skill
It turns this Skill's method into a quality input that can be executed, reviewed, and reused.
- Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded analysis, design, or validation preparation for safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions.
- Keep the analysis focused on safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions; do not replace business owners or Human risk acceptance, exception approval, or safety decisions.
- Never invent system behavior, fields, model outputs, data, thresholds, root causes, execution records, or pass claims.
- Static design, plans, file presence, or a dry run retain their evidence state and cannot become proof of real execution.
- Listing checks without triggers, expected concerns, owner roles, close conditions, and evidence.
When to use
Use this Skill
- Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded analysis, design, or validation preparation for safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions.
- Use it to review an Agent, RAG, or LLM plan, result, or evidence set and produce actionable improvements.
- Use it when context is incomplete but a bounded first pass with assumptions, gaps, and human-decision boundaries is still useful.
Common pitfalls
- Listing checks without triggers, expected concerns, owner roles, close conditions, and evidence.
- Treating adjacent tests or model tools as a complete AI safety judgment.
- Using unexplained numbers for false precision or writing correlation as causation.
- Refusing incomplete input, or pretending that incomplete evidence is conclusive.
Input
Minimum Input
- The current task scope, objective, and subject under review.
Recommended Input
- Project goal
- Test scope
- Constraints
Optional Context
- Relevant code or configuration
- Historical results
- Logs and metrics
Output
The output follows this Skill's method and makes facts, assumptions, risks, and next steps explicit.
Judge the output value before installing
- 01Read and follow prompts/ai-safety-testing.md, including its input audit, domain coverage, and output order.
- 02Extract scope, environment, version, time window, constraints, success criteria, and available evidence, with attention to safety policy, abuse category, refusal and redirect, privacy boundary, escalation decision.
- 03Separate confirmed facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions before ranking by risk and evidence strength.
- 04Turn high-risk items into preconditions, steps, expected behavior or decision criteria, required evidence, and a validation method.
View full output structure
- 05When input is incomplete, deliver a bounded first pass, state unsupported conclusions, and never present static material as execution evidence.
How It Works
- 01Read and follow prompts/ai-safety-testing.md, including its input audit, domain coverage, and output order.
- 02Extract scope, environment, version, time window, constraints, success criteria, and available evidence, with attention to safety policy, abuse category, refusal and redirect, privacy boundary, escalation decision.
- 03Separate confirmed facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions before ranking by risk and evidence strength.
- 04Turn high-risk items into preconditions, steps, expected behavior or decision criteria, required evidence, and a validation method.
- 05When input is incomplete, deliver a bounded first pass, state unsupported conclusions, and never present static material as execution evidence.
Install & Quick Start
Install command / SHELL
npx skills add \
https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/ai-safety-testing
-gai-safety-testing.prompt
@skill ai-safety-testing
Using the current project context, produce an actionable result following this Skill.
Additional context:
[Paste project context or requirement]---
name: ai-safety-testing
description: Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions; triggers include AI 安全 and AI safety.
---
# AI Safety Testing
## When to Use
- Use this skill when you need evidence-bounded analysis, design, or validation preparation for safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions.
- Use it to review an Agent, RAG, or LLM plan, result, or evidence set and produce actionable improvements.
- Use it when context is incomplete but a bounded first pass with assumptions, gaps, and human-decision boundaries is still useful.
## Output Format Options
- Default to Markdown organized by domain risk, evidence state, priority, and boundary.
- When the user requests tables, CSV, JSON, or ticket fields, preserve the same finding fields, evidence, and decision boundaries.
- Before machine consumption, confirm the schema, enums, required fields, and evidence sources.
## How to Use
1. Read and follow `prompts/ai-safety-testing.md`, including its input audit, domain coverage, and output order.
2. Extract scope, environment, version, time window, constraints, success criteria, and available evidence, with attention to safety policy, abuse category, refusal and redirect, privacy boundary, escalation decision.
3. Separate confirmed facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions before ranking by risk and evidence strength.
4. Turn high-risk items into preconditions, steps, expected behavior or decision criteria, required evidence, and a validation method.
5. When input is incomplete, deliver a bounded first pass, state unsupported conclusions, and never present static material as execution evidence.
## Reference Files
- Always read `prompts/ai-safety-testing.md`; it is the complete execution specification for this skill.
- For evaluation, read `evals/eval.yaml` and the matching cases under `evals/cases/`.
- Load `references/`, `examples/`, `scripts/`, or `output-formats.md` only when those directories exist and the task needs them.
## Core Constraints
- Keep the analysis focused on safety policy, abuse categories, refusal/redirect behavior, privacy, escalation, and Human risk decisions; do not replace business owners or Human risk acceptance, exception approval, or safety decisions.
- Never invent system behavior, fields, model outputs, data, thresholds, root causes, execution records, or pass claims.
- Static design, plans, file presence, or a dry run retain their evidence state and cannot become proof of real execution.
- When evidence is insufficient, use pending confirmation, blocked, unassessed, or NOT_SCORED and give the smallest validation method.
- For user data, production, or safety work, use least privilege, masked data, mocks, dry runs, or isolation.
## Delivery Checklist
- [ ] Covered safety policy, abuse category, refusal and redirect, privacy boundary, escalation decision, with source, evidence state, and validation method for each.
- [ ] Separated facts, inferences, candidate recommendations, gaps, and Human decisions.
- [ ] Gave high-risk items P0/P1/P2/P3 or an equivalent priority, owner role, and close condition.
- [ ] Did not turn plans, static checks, or dry runs into test execution, all-passed, or safety-approved claims.
- [ ] Stated residual risk, stop/escalation conditions, and next actions.
## Common Pitfalls
- Listing checks without triggers, expected concerns, owner roles, close conditions, and evidence.
- Treating adjacent tests or model tools as a complete AI safety judgment.
- Using unexplained numbers for false precision or writing correlation as causation.
- Refusing incomplete input, or pretending that incomplete evidence is conclusive.
## Best Practices
- Start with paths most likely to cause user harm, business loss, or decision blockage.
- Use the smallest verifiable experiment to reduce uncertainty and record conditions, versions, sources, and evidence.
- Make the Skill independently installable, executable, and reviewable by another engineer.