agentleFS
Sign inStart free
InditexTechInditexTech/weavejs/.agents/skills/migrate-to-shoehorn/SKILL.md

migrate-to-shoehorn

Skill246 starsChanged 46 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Migrate test files from `as` type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace `as` in tests, or needs partial test data.

  • Installs packages

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 4 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 4

    Common

    Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Common:

    Test code only: Never use shoehorn in production code.

    line 12
  2. Common:

    Must manually specify target type

    line 17
  3. Common:

    Gather requirements: - ask user:

    line 107
  4. Common:

    Do they need to pass intentionally wrong data for error testing?

    line 110

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Migrate to Shoehorn

Why shoehorn?

shoehorn lets you pass partial data in tests while keeping TypeScript happy. It replaces as assertions with type-safe alternatives.

Test code only. Never use shoehorn in production code.

Problems with as in tests:

  • Trained not to use it
  • Must manually specify target type
  • Double-as (as unknown as Type) for intentionally wrong data

Install

npm i @total-typescript/shoehorn

Migration patterns

Large objects with few needed properties

Before:

type Request = {
  body: { id: string };
  headers: Record<string, string>;
  cookies: Record<string, string>;
  // ...20 more properties
};

it("gets user by id", () => {
  // Only care about body.id but must fake entire Request
  getUser({
    body: { id: "123" },
    headers: {},
    cookies: {},
    // ...fake all 20 properties
  });
});

After:

import { fromPartial } from "@total-typescript/shoehorn";

it("gets user by id", () => {
  getUser(
    fromPartial({
      body: { id: "123" },
    }),
  );
});

as Type → fromPartial()

Before:

getUser({ body: { id: "123" } } as Request);

After:

import { fromPartial } from "@total-typescript/shoehorn";

getUser(fromPartial({ body: { id: "123" } }));

as unknown as Type → fromAny()

Before:

getUser({ body: { id: 123 } } as unknown as Request); // wrong type on purpose

After:

import { fromAny } from "@total-typescript/shoehorn";

getUser(fromAny({ body: { id: 123 } }));

When to use each

FunctionUse case
fromPartial()Pass partial data that still type-checks
fromAny()Pass intentionally wrong data (keeps autocomplete)
fromExact()Force full object (swap with fromPartial later)

Workflow

  1. Gather requirements - ask user:
    • What test files have as assertions causing problems?
    • Are they dealing with large objects where only some properties matter?
    • Do they need to pass intentionally wrong data for error testing?
  2. Install and migrate:
    • Install: npm i @total-typescript/shoehorn
    • Find test files with as assertions: grep -r " as [A-Z]" --include="*.test.ts" --include="*.spec.ts"
    • Replace as Type with fromPartial()
    • Replace as unknown as Type with fromAny()
    • Add imports from @total-typescript/shoehorn
    • Run type check to verify

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free