exec-testing
Skill1 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Execution skill loaded when writing tests or implementing code that requires test coverage.
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- exec-accessibilitySkill
- exec-architectureSkill
- exec-code-reviewSkill
- exec-debuggingSkill
- exec-documentationSkill
- exec-performanceSkill
- exec-refactoringSkill
- exec-repo-patternsSkill
- exec-securitySkill
- exec-ui-uxSkill
- exec-verificationSkill
- tech-dockerSkill
- tech-flutterSkill
- tech-goSkill
- tech-graphqlSkill
- tech-kotlinSkill
- tech-nextjsSkill
- tech-nodeSkill
- tech-postgresSkill
- tech-pythonSkill
- tech-reactSkill
- tech-rustSkill
- tech-swiftSkill
- tech-tailwindSkill
- tech-typescriptSkill
- tech-vueSkill
- linear-spanks-gitSkill
- linear-spanksSkill
- linear-workflowSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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 13
Edge Cases: Do not just test the "happy path".
- Distinctive: line 14
Mocking: Do not overmock. Mocking internal implementation details makes tests brittle.
- Distinctive: line 15
Regression: If fixing a bug, write a failing test that reproduces the bug *before* writing the fix.
≈ “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 Execution Strategy
Choose checks proportional to the behavior changed and follow required repository checks. Reuse the existing verification plan when it still applies. Do not add tests for reversible, low-impact edits or tests that merely restate the implementation. For behavior changes, follow these guidelines:
- Existing Style: Identify whether the project uses TDD, BDD, or standard unit tests. Match the syntax (e.g., Jest, Mocha, Vitest).
- Level of Testing: Focus on unit tests for pure logic and integration tests for boundaries (e.g., database, external APIs).
- Edge Cases: Do not just test the "happy path". Test null inputs, boundary conditions, and unexpected types.
- Mocking: Do not overmock. Mocking internal implementation details makes tests brittle. Mock external boundaries only.
- Regression: If fixing a bug, write a failing test that reproduces the bug before writing the fix.
During repair, rerun failed checks and checks affected by the edit. Run required final checks against the actual candidate before completion. Do not repeat passing checks on unchanged inputs unless new evidence, environment/toolchain changes, or a repository requirement makes repetition necessary.
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.