5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-agent-testing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Nw Agent Testing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nwave-ai-nw-agent-testing-nwave)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: nw-agent-testing
description: 5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
---
# Agent Testing Framework
## 5-Layer Testing Approach
### Layer 1: Output Quality (Unit-Level)
Validate agent produces correct, well-structured outputs for typical inputs.
**Test**: Agent follows workflow phases | Outputs match expected format/structure | Domain-specific rules correctly applied | Token efficiency within bounds
**How**: Manual invocation with representative inputs. Check against acceptance criteria in agent description.
### Layer 2: Integration / Handoff Validation
Validate correct input/output between agents in workflows.
**Test**: Input parsing handles upstream format | Output format matches downstream expectations | Error signals propagate correctly | Subagent mode activation works (skip greet, execute autonomously)
**How**: End-to-end workflow execution through full agent chain (e.g., DISCUSS -> DESIGN -> DELIVER).
### Layer 3: Adversarial Output Validation
Challenge validity of agent outputs rather than accepting at face value.
**Test**: Source verification (cited sources real and accurate?) | Bias detection (favors one approach without evidence?) | Edge case coverage | Completeness (required sections present?)
**How**: Peer review by `-reviewer` agent using structured critique dimensions.
### Layer 4: Adversarial Verification (Peer Review)
Independent review to catch biases and blind spots in agent design.
**Test**: Definition follows validation checklist? | Redundant Claude default instructions? | Over/under-specified? | Could simpler agent achieve same results?
**How**: `@nw-agent-builder` validates via 11-point checklist or `@agent-builder-reviewer` runs structured review.
### Layer 5: Security Validation
Test resilience against misuse and prompt injection.
**Test**: Tool restriction enforcement | maxTurns respected | Permission mode correctly scoped | Agent stays within declared scope
**How**: Frontmatter fields enforce at platform level. Verify configuration.
## Prompt Injection Resistance
Claude Code platform provides injection resistance through: subagent isolation (own context, no sub-subagents) | Tool restriction via frontmatter `tools` | Permission modes via `permissionMode` | Hook-based validation (PreToolUse, PostToolUse)
Do NOT add prose-based injection defense. Configure platform features:
```yaml
---
tools: Read, Glob, Grep # Only tools this agent needs
maxTurns: 30 # Prevents runaway execution
permissionMode: default # User approves dangerous actions
---
```
## Security Validation Checklist
- [ ] `tools` restricted to minimum necessary (least privilege)
- [ ] `maxTurns` set to prevent runaway execution
- [ ] `permissionMode` appropriate for risk level
- [ ] No `Bash` unless agent requires command execution
- [ ] No `Write` unless agent creates/modifies files
- [ ] Description accurately describes scope
- [ ] Subagent mode handles autonomous execution correctly
- [ ] No sensitive data hardcoded in definition
## Testing Workflow for New Agents
1. **Create** with minimal definition
2. **Layer 1**: Invoke with 2-3 representative inputs, check outputs
3. **Layer 2**: Run in workflow chain if applicable
4. **Fix** failures observed
5. **Validate**: Run 11-point checklist
6. **Iterate**: Add instructions only for observed failure modes
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!