Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Software Testing

ASecurity

Use when a task asks how many test cases a boolean condition requires, how to derive tests from high-level and low-level requirements, which coverage objectives apply per software level (level A requires mc-dc, B decision coverage, C statement coverage, D and E none), or how to measure and document structural coverage against the DO-178C Table A-7 objectives. Generate requirements-based-testing test cases for DO-178C airborne software and count the test cases each structural-coverage metric d...

2 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 9/27/2026
ai-agentspythonexpresstesting

Works with

claude code

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/27/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add ashfordeOU/aero-agent-skills --skill software-testing --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Software Testing?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Software Testing
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/ashfordeou-software-testing/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ashfordeou-software-testing)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: software-testing
description: "Use when a task asks how many test cases a boolean condition requires, how to derive tests from high-level and low-level requirements, which coverage objectives apply per software level (level A requires mc-dc, B decision coverage, C statement coverage, D and E none), or how to measure and document structural coverage against the DO-178C Table A-7 objectives. Generate requirements-based-testing test cases for DO-178C airborne software and count the test cases each structural-coverage metric demands: statement coverage needs 1 case per statement, decision coverage 2 cases per decision, and mc-dc needs n+1 cases for a compound boolean condition with n independent terms. Trigger: requirements-based-testing, mc-dc test-case-count, structural-coverage measurement, coverage-objectives per level, test case generation."
license: Apache-2.0
compliance: STANDARDS-REF
standards:
  - id: do-178c
    reference-only: true
gated: false
domain: avionics
pack: avionics
compatibility: "agentskills.io SKILL.md; any SKILL.md host (Claude Code, Hermes, OpenClaw)"
metadata:
  domain: avionics
  subdomain: do178c
  tags: [requirements-based-testing, structural-coverage, mc-dc, statement-coverage, decision-coverage, test-case-count, coverage-objectives]
  version: 0.1.0
  author: Aero Agent Skills
---

# DO-178C Requirements-Based Software Testing (avionics/do178c/software-testing)

Use when the task is generating test cases from DO-178C requirements,
counting the test cases a structural coverage metric demands for a boolean
condition, or measuring statement, decision, and MC/DC coverage against the
objectives for the software level.

## Domain quick reference

- Requirements-based testing: every high-level and low-level requirement is
  exercised by at least one test case derived from that requirement (normal
  range, plus robustness and boundary cases the requirement implies).
- Statement coverage: every executable statement runs at least once. Test
  cases needed per statement: 1.
- Decision coverage: every decision (boolean expression) takes both
  outcomes. Test cases needed per decision: 2.
- MC/DC (modified condition/decision coverage): every condition in a
  decision takes both outcomes, and each condition independently affects
  the decision outcome. For a compound condition with n independent terms:
  n + 1 test cases.
- Worked count: A AND B AND C (3 terms) needs 4 MC/DC cases: TTT, FTT,
  TFT, TTF.
- Worked count: A OR B OR C OR D (4 terms) needs 5 MC/DC cases: FFFF,
  TFFF, FTFF, FFTF, FFFT.
- Coverage objectives per level (DO-178C Table A-7, summarized): level A =
  statement + decision + MC/DC; level B = statement + decision; level C =
  statement; levels D and E = none required.
- Required structural coverage: 100% of the metric the level demands. The
  test case count for one compound condition is: MC/DC n + 1, decision 2,
  statement 1.

## Workflow

1. Confirm the software level (DAL) and the coverage depth it demands
   (A MC/DC, B decision, C statement, D/E none).
2. Derive test cases from each high-level and low-level requirement:
   normal-range inputs first, then robustness and boundary cases the
   requirement implies.
3. For each compound boolean condition in the software, count its
   independent terms n and compute the required test cases: level A n + 1,
   level B 2, level C 1.
4. Generate the minimal MC/DC vector set for each compound condition
   (n + 1 assignments: all-true plus one-false-per-term for AND, all-false
   plus one-true-per-term for OR).
5. Run the test cases on the target or host with instrumentation; measure
   statement, decision, and MC/DC coverage.
6. Compare measured coverage against the objectives for the level;
   investigate every shortfall.
7. Document the coverage analysis; justify residual uncovered code (dead
   code, masked logic) instead of claiming 100% without evidence.

## Pitfalls

- Confusing this leaf with avionics/do178c/verification: that leaf covers
  the verification process (reviews, analyses, independence, verification
  results); this leaf is specifically requirements-based test case
  generation and structural coverage measurement.
- Confusing this leaf with avionics/do254/hardware-verification: DO-254 verifies
  airborne electronic hardware; DO-178C software testing applies to
  software items.
- Using 2n cases for MC/DC: a 3-term AND needs 4 cases (TTT, FTT, TFT,
  TTF), not 6.
- Covering a level A decision with statement or decision coverage only:
  level A demands MC/DC, level B demands decision coverage.
- Forgetting that levels D and E have no structural coverage objectives,
  while requirements-based testing still applies to them.
- Counting operators instead of terms: A AND (B OR C) has 3 independent
  conditions, so MC/DC needs 4 cases.
- Ignoring short-circuit evaluation: assignments that are unreachable must
  not be counted as satisfied outcomes.
- Reporting 100% coverage without instrumented evidence: coverage is
  measured on executed code, not inferred from test design.

## Behavior contract (gate 3)

The test-case counting and coverage-objective logic is exercised by the
gate 3 contract test: scripts/test_software_testing.py against
scripts/software_testing_logic.py (stdlib unittest, offline). Run:
python3 scripts/test_software_testing.py

## Compliance

- Standards referenced, not reproduced: DO-178C text is proprietary
  (RTCA/EUROCAE); summary-only per standards-map.yaml and brief 06.
- compliance: STANDARDS-REF, gated: false.

Attribution

ashfordeOUashfordeOU
View sourceMore from ashfordeOU →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Know which skills are safe — weekly.

Best new skills + every skill we flagged as malicious. From the team that scanned 103,619.

Join free

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Know which skills are safe — weekly.

Best new skills + every skill we flagged as malicious. From the team that scanned 103,619.

Join free

Related Skills

Caveman

Ultra-compressed communication mode that cuts output tokens while keeping technical accuracy. Levels: lite, full, ultra and the wenyan variants. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief" or "less tokens".

1074701 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

694821 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3351 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

691 votes

math-skill

A comprehensive mathematical reasoning skill for AI assistants — handles arithmetic to research-level problems with rigorous step-by-step reasoning, systematic verification, and transparent uncertainty handling

381 votes
View all in ai-agents →