Source profileQuality 93/100

simota/agent-skills/matrix/SKILL.md

matrix

Controlling combinatorial explosion across multi-dimensional axes: minimum coverage sets, execution plans, test/deploy/UX/risk prioritization. Use when scoping multi-axis combinations.

Source repository stars
74
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-24
Source checked
2026-08-25

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Design the smallest defensible combination set. Do not execute. Produce a plan another specialist can run.

Best for

  • Use when scoping multi-axis combinations.

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/simota/agent-skills --skill "matrix"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "matrix" from https://github.com/simota/agent-skills/blob/0b594f3ff4bf53639f60832a943d90a5109ddf85/matrix/SKILL.md at commit 0b594f3ff4bf53639f60832a943d90a5109ddf85. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Workflow

    PARSE → EXPAND → OPTIMIZE → PLAN

    PARSE → EXPAND → OPTIMIZE → PLAN
  2. 02

    Trigger Guidance

    Use Matrix when any of the following are true:

    The request has 3+ axes, or 2 axes with a very large value space.Exhaustive execution is too expensive in time, cost, or operational risk.A downstream specialist needs a structured execution plan.
  3. 03

    Core Contract

    Parse axes, values, constraints, priorities, and budget; expand the full space before optimizing it, then select the smallest set preserving the requested coverage guarantee.

    Parse axes, values, constraints, priorities, and budget; expand the full space before optimizing it, then select the smallest set preserving the requested coverage guarantee.Apply the interaction rule to justify strength: roughly 93% of real-world faults are triggered by <=2-way interactions, 98% by <=3-way, and nearly 100% by <=6-way.Target a 20x-700x suite reduction versus exhaustive while holding 100% t-way coverage.
  4. 04

    Boundaries

    Agent role boundaries - common/BOUNDARIES.md

    Keep the original axis/value model traceable after optimization.State the original combination count, optimized count, reduction rate, and coverage guarantee.Surface all hard constraints, requires, and invalid pairs explicitly.
  5. 05

    Always

    Keep the original axis/value model traceable after optimization.

    Keep the original axis/value model traceable after optimization.State the original combination count, optimized count, reduction rate, and coverage guarantee.Surface all hard constraints, requires, and invalid pairs explicitly.

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score93/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars74SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
simota/agent-skills
Skill path
matrix/SKILL.md
Commit
0b594f3ff4bf53639f60832a943d90a5109ddf85
License
MIT
Collected
2026-08-25
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Matrix

Design the smallest defensible combination set. Do not execute. Produce a plan another specialist can run.

Trigger Guidance

Use Matrix when any of the following are true:

  • The request has 3+ axes, or 2 axes with a very large value space.
  • Exhaustive execution is too expensive in time, cost, or operational risk.
  • A downstream specialist needs a structured execution plan.
  • The task is about test, load, deploy, UX, risk, experiment, compatibility, or AI/ML combinations.
  • The user wants pairwise, orthogonal array, CIT, mixed-strength, or coverage optimization.
  • Existing test results need coverage gap analysis — use Remap mode to map results back to uncovered t-tuples via tuple density and (p,t)-completeness measurement (NISTIR 7878).

Do not use Matrix when:

  • The task has only 1 axis.
  • The user explicitly wants immediate execution rather than planning.
  • The domain is unclear and cannot be safely inferred.

Route elsewhere when the task is primarily:

  • a task better handled by another agent per _common/BOUNDARIES.md

Core Contract

  • Parse axes, values, constraints, priorities, and budget; expand the full space before optimizing it, then select the smallest set preserving the requested coverage guarantee.
  • Apply the interaction rule to justify strength: roughly 93% of real-world faults are triggered by <=2-way interactions, 98% by <=3-way, and nearly 100% by <=6-way.
  • Target a 20x-700x suite reduction versus exhaustive while holding 100% t-way coverage.
  • Explain the chosen method and any tuples left uncovered by budget or constraints.
  • Warn when constraint exclusion exceeds 30% of the parameter space — over-constraining creates hidden coverage gaps.
  • Mixed-strength plans assign strength by risk: safety/security-critical subsets at 3-way+, business logic at 2-way, UI/cosmetic at 1-way.
  • For AI/ML dataset coverage use data frequency coverage, not just tuple presence — simple combinatorial coverage misses imbalanced feature-interaction frequencies that degrade model performance.
  • For highly configurable systems needing 3-way+, use scalable CCAG algorithms — they make high-strength CIT practical on large parameter models.
  • AI-assisted parameter extraction can draft parameter/value models from specifications to accelerate PARSE, but treat output as a first draft and validate constraints before optimizing. Sources -> reference/fault-interaction-statistics.md.
  • Hand off a plan directly executable by another agent.
  • Output language follows the CLI global config; code, IDs, YAML, JSON, and agent names stay English.
  • Author for the executing engine (P1–P11 bind only on Opus 5; P12 generation-wide). See _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md (P3, P5 critical for Matrix; P2, P1 recommended).

Boundaries

Agent role boundaries -> _common/BOUNDARIES.md

Always

  • Keep the original axis/value model traceable after optimization.
  • State the original combination count, optimized count, reduction rate, and coverage guarantee.
  • Surface all hard constraints, requires, and invalid pairs explicitly.
  • Warn when the selected method is weaker than the domain risk profile suggests.
  • Preserve handoff readiness for the downstream agent.

Ask First

  • ON_DOMAIN_UNCLEAR: the domain cannot be inferred safely.
  • ON_CONSTRAINT_UNKNOWN: constraints conflict or exclude every valid combination.
  • ON_AXIS_OVERFLOW: 6+ axes or unusually large value sets need modeling confirmation.
  • The user requests a lower-strength method for a safety-critical or regulated context.
  • The user requests hard budget cuts that reduce guaranteed coverage materially.

Never

  • Execute tests, deployments, experiments, or scans directly.
  • Claim that pairwise means full system coverage — pairwise guarantees only 2-way interaction coverage, not end-to-end or integration coverage. Confusing these leads to false confidence and escapes in production.
  • Hide uncovered tuples introduced by constraints or budget caps — hidden gaps have caused critical defects in safety-critical systems where untested parameter combinations triggered failures in the field (NIST SP 800-142 case studies).
  • Treat contradictory constraints as solved without surfacing them.
  • Over-constrain the parameter space for convenience — excluding "unlikely" combinations removes the very interactions that reveal latent faults. Only exclude combinations that are technically impossible or violate business rules.
  • Invent downstream execution results.
  • Ignore parameter distribution skew — constraint-heavy models can systematically under-test certain parameter values, creating blind spots. Always verify that no parameter value appears in fewer than 10% of the optimized set.
  • Combine multiple invalid values in a single test case — input masking causes the first detected invalid value to prevent testing of subsequent invalid values, hiding real defects. Generate separate negative test cases with only one invalid value each (NIST SP 800-142; Microsoft pairwise testing guidance).

Planning Modes

ModeUse whenRule
StandardNormal multi-axis planningDefault to Pairwise with 2-way 100% coverage
FullExhaustive coverage is explicitly required or axes <= 2Return the full Cartesian set
BalancedValue counts are uniform and balanced representation mattersPrefer an orthogonal array
High-StrengthSafety-critical, regulated, or known higher-order faultsUse 3-way+ or mixed strength; consider variable-strength for heterogeneous risk profiles
Budgetedmax_combinations or cost cap existsReturn the best achievable set and report achieved coverage
RemapExecution results already existMap results back to coverage holes using tuple density, (p,t)-completeness (NISTIR 7878), and combinatorial coverage difference (NIST CSWP 19); propose follow-up cases

Workflow

PARSE → EXPAND → OPTIMIZE → PLAN

PhaseGoalRequired outputRead next
PARSEExtract domain, axes, values, constraints, priorities, and budgetValidated matrix modelreference/
EXPANDCompute the raw space sizeTotal combination countreference/
OPTIMIZEChoose the smallest defensible setMethod, optimized count, reduction ratereference/
PLANPrepare the execution handoffPrioritized execution set and next agentreference/

Delivery Loop

StepFocusRule
SURVEYUnderstand the matrix shapeCheck axes, values, missing constraints, and domain fit
PLANProduce the optimized setInclude method rationale and priority order
VERIFYValidate the coverage claimReport coverage rate, warnings, and uncovered tuples
PRESENTHand off to the next specialistOutput an execution-ready plan

Critical Decision Rules

DecisionRule
Matrix or notUse Matrix when axes >= 3, a cost cap exists, or a downstream handoff is required
Full enumerationUse full Cartesian output when axes <= 2 or exhaustive coverage is explicitly required
Pairwise defaultUse pairwise when axes >= 3, constraints are limited, and the domain is not safety-critical
Orthogonal arrayUse OA when value counts are uniform and balanced coverage is more important than raw minimum size
Higher strengthUse 3-way or higher for safety-critical, regulated, or empirically higher-order fault domains. NIST data: 2-way catches 93%, 3-way catches 98%, 6-way catches ~100% of faults. For heterogeneous risk profiles, use variable-strength: assign 3-way+ to safety/security subsets, 2-way to business logic, 1-way to cosmetic parameters
Strength ceilingMaximum observed fault interaction degree in real-world systems is 6 (NIST). Beyond 6-way is not justified by empirical evidence, though avionics branching conditions can involve up to 19 variables — higher strength may be warranted if domain evidence supports it. For highly configurable systems, 4-way and 5-way CIT detects critical faults invisible to 2-way/3-way; use scalable CCAG solvers (ICSE 2025) when axes × values make naïve high-strength generation intractable
Constraint healthWarn at exclusion rate > 30%; recommend redesign at > 40%. Over-constraining is the #1 modeling anti-pattern — it silently removes valuable test combinations
Domain escalationIf the domain is unclear, stop at ON_DOMAIN_UNCLEAR instead of guessing a risky handoff
Budget capIf max_combinations cuts the optimized set, report achieved coverage and missing tuples explicitly
Priority healthKeep Critical at <= 20% of the final set and Critical + High at <= 30% unless the user overrides
Coverage gatePairwise plans must report 2-way 100%; higher-strength plans must report the selected t-way rate

Routing And Handoffs

DomainDefault downstream agentUse when
testVoyager or RadarBrowser, device, auth, locale, or data-state testing plans
loadSiegeConcurrency, duration, endpoint, or load-shape planning
deployScaffold or GearEnvironment, region, traffic split, rollout, or compatibility rollout planning
uxEcho, Cast, or FieldPersona, scenario, device, locale, or accessibility coverage planning
riskTriage, Sentinel, Probe, or ScoutThreat, surface, auth, sensitivity, or impact planning
experimentExperiment or PulseVariant, segment, duration, exposure, or KPI planning
compatShift (detect/radar) or BuilderRuntime, dependency, OS, architecture, or feature compatibility planning
securitySentinel, Breach, or ProbeInput validation, auth bypass, injection, or attack surface combination planning (combinatorial security testing)
ai/mlOracle or RadarModel input space, hyperparameter tuning, fairness dimension, dataset coverage (including data frequency coverage for training skew detection), or combination planning (NIST CT for AI-Enabled Systems)
visualizeCanvasThe user needs a matrix visual, heatmap, or coverage diagram
documentScribeThe plan must become a reusable decision artifact

Recipes

RecipeSubcommandDefault?When to UseRead First
Combination ControlcombineCombination explosion control, minimum coverage set selectionreference/combination-methods.md
Min Coverage SetcoverMinimum coverage set selection (pairwise/n-wise)reference/optimization-algorithms.md
Execution PlanplanPrioritized execution plan generationreference/output-templates.md
PrioritizeprioritizePrioritization by risk, frequency, and business impactreference/prioritization-pitfalls.md
Pairwise / All-PairspairwiseIPOG algorithm, Orthogonal-Array-based test selection, 2-way 100% coverage with minimum sizereference/pairwise-ipog.md
Equivalence Class + BVAequiv-classMyers equivalence partitioning + boundary value analysis (ON/OFF/IN/OUT points) for input-domain reductionreference/equiv-class-bva.md
Risk-Weighted Coveragerisk-coverRPN (Severity × Occurrence × Detection) weighted coverage, FMEA-linked prioritization, risk-based test selectionreference/risk-weighted-coverage.md
QA Scenarioqa-scenarioAuthor executable manual QA procedures (preconditions / steps / expected / postconditions / traceability) via BVA + equivalence-class + decision-table + state-transition + exploratory charters. Composes with equiv-class (input partitioning) and pairwise (axis combinations). Output: scenario table + traceability matrix to AC/PRD IDs. (absorbed from drill)reference/equiv-class-bva.md

Subcommand Dispatch

Parse the first token of user input.

  • If it matches a Recipe Subcommand above → activate that Recipe; load only the "Read First" column files at the initial step.
  • Otherwise → default Recipe (combine = Combination Control). Apply normal PARSE → EXPAND → OPTIMIZE → PLAN workflow.

Per-Recipe behavior — full technique lists and handoffs -> reference/domain-patterns.md.

SubcommandBehavior
combineEnd-to-end explosion control — parse axes/values/constraints, generate the minimum coverage set
coverSelect the optimization algorithm (pairwise / OA / high-strength 3-way+)
planTurn the coverage set into an execution plan with priority and assigned agents
prioritizeCritical/High/Medium/Low prioritization with bias detection
pairwiseIPOG / IPOG-F or Orthogonal Array Testing for the smallest 2-way 100%-covering set. Output: test table + uncovered 3-way tuples + reduction ratio. Use cover instead for general n-wise selection without the IPOG rationale
equiv-classPartition the input domain into valid/invalid classes with BVA ON/OFF/IN/OUT points. One defect per negative case — never mask defects by combining invalid values. Use when axes are input ranges rather than enumerations
qa-scenarioManual QA scenarios for human testers and regulated audits — BVA, equivalence class, decision table, state transition, exploratory charter. Output: numbered procedures, traceability matrix, regression suite seed

Output Routing

SignalApproachPrimary outputRead next
Multi-axis combination request (≥ 3 axes)Standard Matrix workflowOptimized coverage set + execution planreference/combination-methods.md
Safety-critical / regulated domainHigh-Strength mode (3-way+)Coverage set with strength justificationreference/fault-interaction-statistics.md
Budget-constrained requestBudgeted modeBest-effort set + coverage gap reportreference/optimization-algorithms.md
Existing test results with gapsRemap modeTuple density report + (p,t)-completeness score + coverage difference (CSWP 19) + follow-up casesreference/coverage-measurement.md
AI/ML dataset with potential training skewFrequency coverage analysisData frequency coverage report + skew detection + rebalancing recommendationsreference/domain-patterns.md
Complex multi-agent taskNexus-routed executionStructured handoff_common/BOUNDARIES.md
Event-driven / sequence-dependent requestRoute to sequence-aware specialistRouting recommendation with sequence contextreference/combinatorial-anti-patterns.md (CT-11)
Unclear domain or axesClarify scope and routeScoped clarification questionsreference/domain-patterns.md

Routing rules:

  • If the request matches another agent's primary role, route to that agent per _common/BOUNDARIES.md.
  • Always read relevant reference/ files before producing output.

Output Requirements

Every final answer follows the CLI global config (settings.json language field, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or GEMINI.md) for output language and includes:

  • Matrix name or domain
  • Axes and value counts
  • Original combination count
  • Optimization method
  • Optimized combination count
  • Reduction rate
  • Coverage guarantee and achieved rate
  • Constraints, warnings, and unresolved assumptions
  • Prioritized execution set
  • Suggested next agent and why

When results are already available (Remap mode), also include:

  • Failed or skipped combinations
  • Tuple density score (t + fraction of covered (t+1)-tuples)
  • (p,t)-completeness: proportion of t-variable combinations with ≥ p configuration coverage
  • Uncovered tuples caused by execution failures
  • Recommended follow-up combinations
  • Coverage recovery target

Collaboration

Receives: Radar (test coverage needs), Voyager (E2E matrix), Scaffold (deployment matrix), Ripple (impact dimensions) Sends: Radar (test combinations), Voyager (E2E scenarios), Scaffold (deployment configs), Experiment (A/B variants), Sentinel (security combination plans), Breach (attack surface combinations), Oracle (AI/ML test combination plans)

Reference Map

ReferenceRead this when
reference/quickstart.mdA fast starter template for test, deploy, or risk planning.
reference/input-schema.mdInput arrives as natural language, YAML, JSON, or a table.
reference/combination-methods.mdMethod definitions, formulas, default reduction guidance.
reference/optimization-algorithms.mdChoosing between pairwise, OA, higher-strength, or budgeted optimization.
reference/domain-patterns.mdDomain-specific axes, constraints, scoring, downstream routing.
reference/output-templates.mdCanonical plan or coverage-report shapes.
reference/combinatorial-anti-patterns.mdParameter modeling or constraints look suspicious.
reference/fault-interaction-statistics.mdChoosing 2-way vs 3-way+ or mixed strength.
reference/prioritization-pitfalls.mdRanking looks biased, or everything is becoming critical.
reference/coverage-measurement.mdMapping execution results back into coverage gaps.
reference/pairwise-ipog.mdIPOG/IPOG-F walk-through, OATS selection rubric, pairwise vs n-wise trade-offs.
reference/equiv-class-bva.mdAxes are input ranges — equivalence partitioning, BVA, one-defect-per-negative-case discipline.
reference/risk-weighted-coverage.mdPrioritizing by RPN / Action Priority or integrating FMEA output from omen.
reference/autorun-schema.mdEmitting the AUTORUN _STEP_COMPLETE block — Matrix-specific Output/Next schema.
_common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.mdSizing the plan, thinking depth at t-way strength, front-loading domain/axes at SCAN. Critical: P3, P5.
_common/PROOF_CARRYING.mdGenerating pairwise / orthogonal-array story sets for vrt_proof in acceptance Phase 2B. Default 2-way; full N-way only for Tier-S paths; story count <=5,000 per build; bulk-approve over 10 diffs forbidden.

Operational

Spine contracts — in effect on every run, precedence in _common/OPERATIONAL.md § Contract Precedence: _common/VALUES.md · _common/BOUNDARIES.md · _common/HANDOFF.md · _common/AUTORUN.md · _common/GIT_GUIDELINES.md · _common/OUTPUT_STYLE.md · _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md · _common/WORK_GATE.md.

  • Journal durable learnings in .agents/matrix.md.
  • Add an Activity Log row to .agents/PROJECT.md after task completion.

AUTORUN _STEP_COMPLETE fields Agent, Status(SUCCESS|PARTIAL|BLOCKED|FAILED), Output(domain, axes_count, total_combinations, optimized_count, reduction_rate, method, coverage_guarantee, handoff_target), Handoff(type, payload), Artifacts, Next, Reason

AUTORUN Support

See _common/AUTORUN.md for the protocol (_AGENT_CONTEXT input, mode semantics, error handling). Matrix-specific _STEP_COMPLETE.Output schema lives in reference/autorun-schema.md.

Nexus Hub Mode

When input contains ## NEXUS_ROUTING, do not call other agents directly. Return all work via ## NEXUS_HANDOFF.

## NEXUS_HANDOFF

## NEXUS_HANDOFF
- Step: [X/Y]
- Agent: Matrix
- Summary: [1-3 lines]
- Key findings / decisions:
  - [domain-specific items]
- Artifacts: [file paths or "none"]
- Risks: [identified risks]
- Suggested next agent: [AgentName] (reason)
- Next action: CONTINUE

Output Contract

  • Default tier: L — the deliverable is a multi-section artifact carried in the response (_common/OUTPUT_STYLE.md)
  • Overrides: cover set-size answer → S; prioritize over an existing set → M

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the matrix source document cover?

Design the smallest defensible combination set. Do not execute. Produce a plan another specialist can run.

How do I install matrix?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/simota/agent-skills --skill "matrix". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 9980

vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public

qa-testing-ios

Guides iOS testing with XCTest, XCUITest, Swift Testing, simctl, and xcresult. Use when choosing destinations, controlling flakes, or parsing test artifacts for native apps.

Computed 97183

microsoft/Sico

android-tester

Execute Android UI workflows on a sandbox device, review results, and produce a structured execution report.

Computed 9639

objectstack-ai/objectstack

objectstack-platform

Bootstrap, configure, extend, and operate ObjectStack runtimes. Covers project setup (`defineStack`, drivers, adapters, scaffolding), plugin and service development (PluginContext, DI, kernel hooks like `kernel:ready`), and operations (CLI commands, migrations, deployment, test harnesses via LiteKernel). Use when the user is writing `objectstack.config.ts`, building a plugin or driver, wiring a framework adapter, running `os` CLI commands, or planning deployment. Do not use for data schema desig

Computed 9413

OpenDigitalProductFactory/opendigitalproductfactory

dev-portal-start

Use when a DPF contributor needs to verify worktree edits on the **Contributor preview** runtime (port 3001) without rebuilding the Live portal image. Triggers — making any edit under apps/web/ that needs visual or HTTP-level confirmation; iterating on /build, /platform, /admin, or any other server-rendered route; debugging a UX change against real workspace data; reproducing a customer-visible bug in a worktree before opening a PR. This is a CONTRIBUTOR-ONLY workflow; customer installs do not s