Testing Bgs Modpack

Testing BGS Modpack Batches (judgment skill)

This skill answers one question: "It's installed -- how do I PROACTIVELY verify this batch before declaring the batch good?"

BB84's source material is thin here. That is part of the skill's operating doctrine: do not manufacture a giant universal QA checklist. Test the batch's intended in-game impact, preserve save hygiene, query KB for game-specific commands/routes, and mark [GAP — needs user input] when the substrate is silent.

The Iron Law

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A batch is not accepted because the game reached the main menu. It is accepted only after the   |
| batch's intended in-game effect is observed in its target context, with no immediate local       |
| breakage, and without baking unverified state into the user's main save.                         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Route gate (one primary skill per intent)

Use this skill when the user has already installed a batch and wants a proactive post-install verification pass: what to inspect, what commands/routes to use, what counts as enough evidence to move to the next batch.

Do not use this skill as the primary skill for adjacent intents:

Terminal handoff: if proactive testing finds a failure signal, stop calling it "testing" and hand off to diagnosing-bgs-problems. A failed verification pass is not an invitation to improvise a fix inside this skill.

When to use / When NOT

Use when:

• A small batch was installed and the user asks "what should I test before moving on?"
• The user asks "is it stable?", "post-install check", "验证安装", or "测试整合包".
• You need to verify visible new content, expected local mechanics, or immediate CTD/performance risk in the batch's target context.
• You need a save-hygiene reminder before the user commits playthrough state.
• You need to query KB for per-game console commands or test routes without fossilizing those facts in the skill.

Do not use when:

• A crash/perf/quest/mesh/script failure already exists. Escalate to diagnosing-bgs-problems.
• The question is whether to include the mod at all. Use evaluating-bgs-mods.
• The batch boundary is unknown and the user wants to plan the pack architecture. Use curating-bgs-modpack.
• You are about to write game-specific console command catalogs into this file. Those belong in KB.
• You are tempted to invent generic QA filler like "verify all systems work". Mark [GAP — needs user input] instead.

Process Flow

digraph testing_bgs_modpack {
  rankdir=TB;
  node [shape=box];

  start [shape=doublecircle, label="Installed batch"];
  boundary [label="Name the batch boundary\nWhich mods were just added?\nWhat impact did they promise?"];
  kb [label="Query KB\n(game + mod type + console/test routes + save hygiene)"];
  gap [shape=diamond, label="KB / user intent enough\nto define target checks?"];
  ask [label="Mark [GAP] and ask one focused question\nwith a recommended minimal route"];
  save [label="Protect save state\nUse disposable/pre-batch test save\nDo not overwrite main progression"];
  route [label="Run batch-bounded in-game checks\nGo only where this batch should matter\nUse per-game commands from KB"];
  observe [label="Observe semantic readback\nvisible effect present? expected mechanic works?\nno immediate CTD/error/major local breakage?"];
  fail [shape=doublecircle, label="FAIL / FAILURE SIGNAL\nStop and hand off to diagnosing-bgs-problems"];
  more [shape=doublecircle, label="NEEDS MORE INFO\nName exact missing proof / KB gap"];
  pass [shape=doublecircle, label="PASS FOR THIS BATCH\nRecord evidence, then next batch may proceed"];

  start -> boundary -> kb -> gap;
  gap -> ask [label="no"];
  gap -> save [label="yes"];
  ask -> kb [label="after answer or KB backfill"];
  save -> route -> observe;
  observe -> pass [label="intended effect observed + no local breakage"];
  observe -> fail [label="CTD, severe perf, missing content, broken mechanic"];
  observe -> more [label="impact unknown or route not grounded"];
}

KB query discipline

This skill teaches the testing posture. It does not inline game-specific commands, cells, routes, log tools, or benchmark thresholds.

Before recommending a console command or test route, query KB for the current game and the batch's mod-impact type:

bgs_kb_query({
  query: "post-install verification console commands test routes <mod type>",
  domains: ["install-planning", "debugging", "engine"],
  games: ["<current game>"]
})

bgs_kb_query({
  query: "save hygiene script initialization batch testing",
  domains: ["install-planning", "debugging", "engine"],
  games: ["<current game>"]
})

[STOP] If KB is silent on a command or route, do not invent one from memory. Mark [GAP — needs user input] and ask for the user's preferred test cell / route / save boundary, or recommend the smallest non-saving visual/mechanic check that follows from the mod author's stated impact.

[STOP] Per-game console commands and travel/debug shortcuts are KB facts. They belong in KB records, not in this game-agnostic skill body.

Checklist

1. Name the batch: list only the mods just installed and the intended impact of each. If the batch boundary is unclear, mark [GAP — needs user input] and ask for it.
2. Read / reuse the author-stated impact: what should visibly or mechanically change if the install is correct?
3. Query KB for the current game's test routes, console commands, save-hygiene notes, and mod-type-specific verification signals.
4. If KB lacks routes or commands, mark [GAP — needs user input]; do not write a universal route from memory.
5. Protect save state before testing. Use a disposable/pre-batch test save or another user-approved save boundary. [GAP — needs user input]: exact safe-save procedure is game/profile-specific and not in the mined corpus.
6. Do not save over the user's main progression until the batch has a PASS verdict.
7. Visit the target context where the batch should matter: the cell, worldspace, UI screen, NPC, item, quest stage, mechanic trigger, or performance hotspot named by the batch/KB. [GAP — needs user input]: if no target context is known, the batch is not verifiable yet.
8. Look for positive evidence: visible new content present, expected local mechanic works once, expected patch/fix changes the previously relevant local behavior, and no immediate CTD or severe local breakage.
9. Treat silent absence as a failure signal: if the mod is enabled but the expected thing is visibly absent, stop and hand off to diagnosis instead of declaring success.
10. Treat error overlays / missing assets / broken UI / severe local FPS collapse as failure signals. [GAP — needs user input]: exact overlay strings and visual markers are per-game/per-mod facts for KB.
11. Do not expand into a whole-pack investigation. If the batch fails, route to diagnosing-bgs-problems; if it passes, record "PASS for this batch" and move to the next batch.
12. Record the evidence in plain terms: batch name, game/profile, save boundary, route used, positive observations, failure signals absent/present, remaining [GAP] items.

Red Flags (STOP)

Rationalizations

Recommended Approach: Senior Curator's Lens

This section reflects an experienced curator's perspective, distilled from BB84's BGS modpack curation work. It is RECOMMENDED guidance, not enforced rule. If the user has a working testing process they prefer, the agent SHOULD respect that.

Recommended testing rhythm:

1. Stage-test after each batch, not after each mod. Single-mod testing has infinite time cost (KB record pack-curation.testing-cost-economics). Batch together additive low-risk mods, then enter a staged-test phase.
2. Test the silent failure surface, not just the crash surface. Walk through areas known to be touched by recent mods; check NPC outfit logic; check inventory drops; sample dialog flow; observe save file size growth pattern.
3. Commit save before risky batches. Saves are the rollback substrate.
4. Long-session discovery is part of the testing rhythm. Many defects only emerge after 10+ hours of real play. Don't claim "stable" from 30 minutes of smoke test.

See KB record mod-evaluation.bb84-curator-perspective-reference for the full curator essay.

See also

• diagnosing-bgs-problems — use after any crash, severe FPS drop, missing content, broken mechanic, log error, or failed verification signal.
• curating-bgs-modpack — owns batch boundaries, rollback rhythm, pack style, and naming/separator discipline.
• evaluating-bgs-mods — decides whether a mod should be included before install.
• interpreting-mod-author-instructions — reads author instructions and installer choices before the testable batch exists.
• writing-bgs-load-order — plugin enable/disable/order mechanics.
• xedit-conflict-audit / xedit-automation — record-level readback when a failed verification points to override/conflict semantics.
• bgs_kb_query — required source for per-game console commands, safe test cells/routes, save-hygiene specifics, and mod-category verification facts.

Source: hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins → plugins/BB-84C/bgs-modding-superpowers/skills/testing-bgs-modpack/SKILL.md