verify-slice-tests
Skill32 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
After a slice's changes are pushed, prove which of its story's tests are automated and passing, mark those automated, and propose splits for tests with scenarios that aren't automated, waiting for the user's answer. Reports one table and fixes nothing. Use when the user asks which tests for a story are automated, to "verify the tests for PROJ-X", or to mark a slice's tests automated. To write missing automation instead, use automate-tests.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- automate-testsSkill
- automate-xray-testsSkill
- bug-bashSkill
- build-epicSkill
- close-out-epicSkill
- create-xray-testSkill
- cross-repo-handoffSkill
- live-verified-bddSkill
- pair-runbookSkill
- release-notesSkill
- release-qaSkill
- retroSkill
- review-epicSkill
- roost-configSkill
- run-bugSkill
- run-sliceSkill
- setupSkill
- shape-epicSkill
- slice-handoffSkill
- stacked-prsSkill
- triage-ticketSkill
- write-runbookSkill
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 17
Manual tests,: if the adapter has them ("Manual tests"), are in scope, but nothing here looks for automation for them: they're checked by …
- Distinctive: line 18
Don't report on other stories' tests, and don't say when other tests are scheduled.
- Distinctive: line 28
Automated and passing: every scenario has automation, and all of it passed in this run.
- Distinctive: line 29
Automated and partially passing: every scenario has automation, and some of it failed.
- Distinctive: line 30
Automated and failing: every scenario has automation, and all of it failed.
- Distinctive: line 39
Read the tests back: after your changes, so the table shows each test's real state, not what you meant to set.
- Distinctive: line 58
After the user answers about a split, carry it out and print the table again.
- Distinctive: line 60
Don't fix failing tests while doing this.
≈ “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
Verify Slice Tests
The changes for a story are pushed. Prove which of its tests are automated and passing, mark the ones that are, and for tests only partly automated, propose a split and wait.
First, load the team config with roost-config, and read its tests adapter (tests.kind). Each step below names one of the adapter's operations ("A story's tests", "Run a test", …); the adapter says how to do it with this team's tests.
Input: the story key. Everything below calls it STORY.
Scope
- The tests in scope are STORY's tests ("A story's tests"), except retired ones ("Retire a test"). Nothing else.
- Manual tests, if the adapter has them ("Manual tests"), are in scope, but nothing here looks for automation for them: they're checked by their recorded run (step 2).
- Don't report on other stories' tests, and don't say when other tests are scheduled. If a test is STORY's, it's in scope, even if another story's work is needed to make it pass.
Steps
- List the tests ("A story's tests").
- Read each test's scenarios ("Read a test's scenarios"). Each scenario is one unit you must account for, matched by its exact name.
- For a manual test, read its
manual run:comments instead, and skip steps 3 and 4 for it. Its status is Manual: passed (the newest run passed every scenario), Manual: failed (the newest run failed one; name it), Manual: not run yet, or Manual: after release (its description saysWhen: after releaseand it hasn't been run).
- For a manual test, read its
- Find the automation for each scenario of every other test ("Find a scenario's automation"), in every repo in
repos. A scenario with none is "not automated". Don't call anything "partially covered". - Run the automation now, against the commit that was pushed ("Run a test"). Don't rely on CI or an earlier run.
- Work out each test's status from its scenarios:
- Automated and passing: every scenario has automation, and all of it passed in this run.
- Automated and partially passing: every scenario has automation, and some of it failed.
- Automated and failing: every scenario has automation, and all of it failed.
- Not automated: at least one scenario has no automation (for a test that only exists as a draft, say "not written").
- Couldn't run: the automation exists but couldn't be run here. Say why in one line. Never guess a result. A scenario that skips because its flag tags don't match the local stack's flag state counts here; name the tag and the actual flag value.
- Mark the tests that are Automated and passing ("Mark a test automated"), and close each Manual: passed test that isn't closed yet (without marking it automated). Change nothing on any other test. If a test is already marked automated but isn't passing now, leave it as it is and flag it in the table.
- Propose a split for each Not automated test whose automated scenarios all passed. Never for a manual test. Some scenarios are things the user doesn't want automated. Don't decide that yourself, and don't change the test yet. For each such test, show:
- What isn't automated: each scenario with no automation, or the steps of a scenario that the automation doesn't check, with the reason (for example, it needs a real external service).
- The proposed split ("Split a test"): the existing test keeps every automated scenario (a scenario that's only partly automated becomes the part the automation checks), and a new test gets the part that isn't automated. Show both in full.
- Then ask: "Split as proposed, change the split, or automate the rest instead?" Stop and wait for the answer before touching that test.
- If the user approves a split, carry it out as "Split a test" says, saving the existing test's scenarios to a local file first and saying where ("Update a test's scenarios"). Re-run the existing test, push any change, and mark it automated; the new test isn't marked automated.
- Read the tests back after your changes, so the table shows each test's real state, not what you meant to set.
Output
One table, then the details. Nothing else.
| Test | Summary | Scenarios automated | Result | Marked automated |
| PROJ-XXXX | … | 4 of 4 | Automated and passing | Yes |
For a manual test, "Scenarios automated" is "manual" and "Result" is its manual status, with the date of the run it comes from.
Under the table, for each test that isn't Automated and passing or Manual: passed:
- Failing: the scenario name, the test that failed (file and test name), and the first line of the assertion error (or, for a graded case, the grader and its verdict).
- Not automated: the scenario names that have no automation, plus the proposed split from step 7.
- Couldn't run: what stopped you.
- Manual: failed or not run yet: what its description says to run, and where, so the owning session or the user can run it. After release: one line saying it's left for after release.
- Marked but failing: any test marked automated that isn't passing.
After the user answers about a split, carry it out and print the table again.
Don't fix failing tests while doing this. Report what you find.
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.

