testing-verification
Skill1 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Select tests by risk, design strong regression and boundary tests, handle flaky suites, and run the completion gate with evidence: exact command, result, scope, and every skipped or blocked check. Use when choosing what to test, judging whether work is done, or producing release evidence. Never weaken a failing test to get green.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AL-JANEF/janefskillsword for word, first seen Sep 19, 2026
- thienanblog/awesome-ai-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen May 3, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- AL-JANEF/janefskills★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- thienanblog/awesome-ai-agent-skills★ 68same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- janefSkill
- forgeSkill
- accessibility-qualitySkill
- api-contractsSkill
- architecture-integritySkill
- context-efficiencySkill
- database-integritySkill
- delegation-disciplineSkill
- devops-reliabilitySkill
- documentation-integritySkill
- frontend-design-qualitySkill
- git-disciplineSkill
- implementation-qualitySkill
- performance-scalabilitySkill
- review-defect-firstSkill
- root-cause-debuggingSkill
- ui-ux-qualitySkill
- auth-hardeningSkill
- secrets-guardSkill
- security-auditSkill
- security-loggingSkill
- skill-security-auditSkill
- threat-modelSkill
- variant-huntSkill
- vuln-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Never fabricate test output, benchmark numbers, or passing checks.
- Distinctive: line 19
Never claim success without a shown run.
- Distinctive: line 20
Never hide or downplay a failure.
- Distinctive: line 21
When uncertain, say so and state how to resolve it.
- Distinctive: line 25
Run the cheapest check that can disprove the change, then expand as risk warrants:
- Distinctive: line 37
Test behavior at the lowest level that observes the real failure mechanism.
- Distinctive: line 39
Prefer real behavior over excessive mocking.
- Distinctive: line 41
Avoid tests that mirror implementation, snapshots with unreviewed noise, or assertions that cannot fail.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Testing & Verification
Completion means the requested behavior and the relevant invariants are supported by evidence, not merely that the edit is finished. Evidence is the command, its meaningful result, and its scope.
Truth policy
- Never fabricate test output, benchmark numbers, or passing checks.
- Never claim success without a shown run. "Tests pass" requires the runner output.
- Never hide or downplay a failure. Never weaken, delete, skip, or mock away a failing test, lint rule, or type check to get green. If a test is wrong, fix it honestly and say why.
- When uncertain, say so and state how to resolve it.
Risk-based ladder
Run the cheapest check that can disprove the change, then expand as risk warrants:
- Static or structural check on edited files (lint, type check, syntax).
- One focused test that exercises the changed behavior or the regression.
- Neighboring unit or integration tests across the affected boundary.
- Build, type check, lint, migration validation, or end-to-end journey when the change can affect them.
- Security, performance, compatibility, or rollback checks for high-impact paths.
Match evidence to risk: public contract or schema → compatibility and consumer checks; auth, payment, privacy, or destructive path → denied cases, audit behavior, rollback; concurrency or retry → ordering, cancellation, idempotency, race-sensitive tests; UI → loading, empty, error, keyboard, responsive, accessibility states; configuration or deployment → parse, dry-run, environment differences, safe rollback.
Design strong tests
- Test behavior at the lowest level that observes the real failure mechanism. Use integration or contract tests when serialization, persistence, framework wiring, or service boundaries matter. Keep a small end-to-end set for critical journeys.
- Cover the happy path plus meaningful validation, authorization, boundary, concurrency, and failure cases according to risk.
- Prefer real behavior over excessive mocking; mock only unstable or external boundaries, and only with a mock that can fail like the real dependency.
- Deterministic clocks, identifiers, randomness, and schedulers over sleeps and retries.
- Avoid tests that mirror implementation, snapshots with unreviewed noise, or assertions that cannot fail.
- For a bug: reproduce first, then add a regression test that fails on the original mechanism.
Flaky suites
Reproduce and classify the cause: timing, order, shared state, network, resource, or environment. Fix isolation or synchronization. Quarantine only with an owner, an issue, evidence, and an expiry.
Completion gate
Run every applicable repository gate once implementation is complete, with evidence shown. Skip a gate only when it genuinely does not apply, and say which and why. On any failure the task is not done: report it, fix the cause, re-run. Procedure, per-stack commands, and what counts as evidence: references/completion-gate.md.
End with an honest status line: what passed (with output), what was skipped and why, what remains.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

