test-design
Skill1 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
What a complete set of tests is for a change - the happy path, every documented failure, both sides of every boundary, the cancellation token and one request per status code - written as Arrange, Act, Assert with one behaviour per test. Use when deciding which tests to write, reviewing tests, fixing a bug, or when coverage is met but you're not sure the behaviour is.
18 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- selamy-labs/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Agenta-AI/agentatheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- zxyycom/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mblauberg/provenanttheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- fang2hou/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- umararshad4/honey-stacktheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use diff-review.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
MidnightDarlingSkilldiff-review
使用场景:按 raw.review.md 清单改完稿后,对 raw.md(OCR 原始)和 final.md(定稿)做对比。说"看我改了哪些""对比一下""diff""校对完了让我看看""我到底接受了哪些建议""我漏改了啥""改动统计""核对一下改动""闭环检查"都走这个 skill。生成段落级 HTML diff,关联 raw.review.md 的 A/B/C 标注,一目了然:接受了哪些 agent 建议、拒绝了哪些、清单外修正了哪些、agent 标过但漏改了哪些。主动触发,不必等用户说 "diff-review"。
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions18 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 18
- Agenta-AI/agenta★ 4.9ksame name
- adamentwistle/fable-skills★ 98same name
- nahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcher★ 59same name
- shabaraba/vibing.nvim★ 13same name
- tlzmw001/aitest-kit★ 13same name
- yasunori0418/skills★ 9same name
- umararshad4/honey-stack★ 5same name
- Lixiuxiu559/AgentForge★ 4same name
- Gusen1453/creed★ 3same name
- adolfoaranaes12/BMAD-ENHANCED★ 2same name
8 more not listed
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 repository40 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-a-use-caseSkill
- api-conventionsSkill
- branches-and-pull-requestsSkill
- cancellationSkill
- ci-for-your-solutionSkill
- ci-pipelineSkill
- clean-architecture-layersSkill
- configuration-and-environmentsSkill
- coverageSkill
- csharp-house-styleSkill
- data-access-ef-coreSkill
- database-migrationsSkill
- docker-and-composeSkill
- docs-and-voiceSkill
- errors-and-exceptionsSkill
- expose-a-use-caseSkill
- family-syncSkill
- health-checksSkill
- integration-testsSkill
- json-serializationSkill
- mapping-with-mapperlySkill
- mcp-inspectorSkill
- mediatorSkill
- optional-token-authSkill
- packages-and-dependenciesSkill
- pagingSkill
- presentation-integration-testsSkill
- releasesSkill
- sample-dataSkill
- security-findingsSkill
- serilogSkill
- telemetrySkill
- template-authoringSkill
- time-providerSkill
- unit-testsSkill
- validationSkill
- writing-a-skillSkill
- xml-docs-and-openapiSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 14
Every test has // Arrange, // Act and // Assert sections, tests one behaviour, and is named Method_Should<Outcome>_<Condition> so a failure …
- Very specific: line 34
Run the coverage command (coverage) last, to find behaviour you forgot, not to pick lines to cover.
- Distinctive: line 73
Stop at the happy path.
- Very specific: line 74
Put two behaviours in one test, or loop over unrelated cases in one [Fact].
- Distinctive: line 75
Write a test with no assertion, or one that can't fail.
- Distinctive: line 76
Test only values in the middle of a range.
- Very specific: line 78
Use random data where the value matters to the assertion.
“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.
Files
Test design
The rule
Tests prove behaviour, positive and negative. Coverage is the floor the pipeline checks, not the goal: a change is tested when every behaviour it adds or changes has a test that would fail if that behaviour broke.
Every test has // Arrange, // Act and // Assert sections, tests one behaviour, and is named Method_Should<Outcome>_<Condition> so a failure reads as a sentence.
What each kind of code needs:
| Code | Positive cases | Negative cases |
| Validator | A valid request has no errors; each allowed boundary value passes | One failing case per rule, asserting the message; each value just outside a boundary fails |
| Handler | The happy path returns the expected result and passes the request's values and the token to the repository | Each documented failure (not found, conflict) throws the right exception, and later calls don't happen |
| Repository | The right rows come back or change, in the right order, with paging and search applied | Unknown ids return null or false; nothing else changes |
| Endpoint, tool, resolver or function | One test per documented success status | One test per documented failure status (validation problem, not found, unauthorised) with the problem body checked |
| Behaviour or middleware | It calls the next step and passes the result through | It stops the request when it should, and the next step isn't called |
Steps
- List the behaviours before writing a test: what the code promises, and every way it can say no. The XML docs and the documented response codes are a good checklist.
- For each range or limit, test both sides: the last value allowed and the first value refused (stars
1and5pass,0and6fail; limit50passes,51fails). Use a[Theory]with[InlineData]for each side. - Assert outcomes, not just that nothing threw: the returned value, the exception type and message, the status code and body, and the calls made with their exact arguments.
- Assert that the cancellation token reaches every repository call (
cancellation). - On a negative path, assert that the work after the failure didn't happen (
DidNotReceiveWithAnyArgs()). - Fixing a bug? Write the test that shows it first, watch it fail, then fix the code.
- Run the coverage command (
coverage) last, to find behaviour you forgot, not to pick lines to cover.
Example
// tests/Application.Tests.Unit/Reviews/Commands/CreateReview/CreateReviewValidatorTests.cs
[Theory]
[InlineData(-1)]
[InlineData(0)]
[InlineData(6)]
[InlineData(100)]
[InlineData(-100)]
public void Validator_ShouldHaveValidationErrorFor_Stars(int stars)// tests/Application.Tests.Unit/Reviews/Commands/UpdateReview/UpdateReviewHandlerTests.cs
[Fact]
public async Task Handle_ShouldThrowException_ReviewDoesNotExist()
{
// Arrange
var command = new UpdateReviewCommand { Id = Guid.NewGuid(), Stars = 5 };
var reviewsRepository = Substitute.For<IReviewsRepository>();
_ = reviewsRepository.UpdateReview(default, default, default).ReturnsForAnyArgs((Review?)null);
var handler = new UpdateReviewHandler(reviewsRepository);
using var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = tokenSource.Token;
// Act
var exception = await Should.ThrowAsync<NotFoundException>(async () => await handler.Handle(command, token));
// Assert
exception.Message.ShouldBe("The Review with the supplied id was not found.");
_ = await reviewsRepository.Received(1).UpdateReview(command.Id, command.Stars, command.Text, token);
}Don't
- Stop at the happy path.
- Put two behaviours in one test, or loop over unrelated cases in one
[Fact]. - Write a test with no assertion, or one that can't fail.
- Test only values in the middle of a range.
- Assert on log output or private state.
- Use random data where the value matters to the assertion. Pick it, or find a known row (
sample-data).
Check
dotnet testThen read the test names for the class you changed. Each behaviour, success and failure, should have its own line.
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.

