test-blindspots
Skill339 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Find consequential behavior that a passing test suite does not establish, using focused exploratory checks. Use when the user asks what green tests miss or wants confidence in test coverage for a specific change. Not a general code review, routine test run, or debugging workflow for an already failing test.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-interface-designSkill
- assumption-testSkill
- blindspot-passSkill
- brainstorm-prototypesSkill
- change-quizSkill
- context-auditSkill
- implementation-notesSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- interview-meSkill
- pitch-packagerSkill
- progressive-disclosureSkill
- reference-huntSkill
- regression-proofSkill
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 21
Do not equate low coverage with a defect, or green tests with exhaustive correctness.
- Distinctive: line 23
Keep probes away from production data and external side effects unless explicitly authorized.
- Distinctive: line 24
Keep this proportional to the change.
≈ “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
Test blindspots
Passing tests establish their assertions under their setup. The gap to investigate is where the implementation and its tests share the same untested assumption.
Steps
- Establish the intended behavior and scope from the request, specification, changed code, callers, and relevant tests. Run the relevant baseline when possible. If it is already failing, report that limitation rather than describing it as green.
- Compare important behavior with what the tests actually assert. Look for a concrete gap: a mock replacing the boundary being claimed, an untested transition, a missing consumer expectation, or an invariant only exercised on the happy path. Choose by consequence and evidence, not by a generic checklist or coverage percentage.
- For each selected gap, state the question and design a small exploratory probe that can distinguish correct from incorrect behavior. Use existing tooling and isolated data. Prefer the actual component over a mock when the mock is the source of uncertainty.
- Execute the bounded probes within scope. Record observed behavior and the requirement it contradicts. If intended behavior is unclear, report a specification question; if execution is unavailable, report an untested risk. Neither is a confirmed defect.
- For a confirmed failure, preserve a minimal reproducer. Add a focused regression test when test edits are within the task's scope; verify that it fails for the intended reason. Report any deliberately failing reproducer separately from the baseline. Do not silently repair production code.
- Finish with confirmed defects first, then consequential untested risks or specification questions, the evidence for each, and what was not examined. Finding no consequential gap is a valid result.
Guardrails
- Do not equate low coverage with a defect, or green tests with exhaustive correctness. A hypothetical scenario alone is not a finding.
- Preserve existing tests and assertions. Do not weaken a test, expand the refactor, or install an unrelated testing framework to produce a result.
- Keep probes away from production data and external side effects unless explicitly authorized. State when a local fixture cannot represent the real boundary.
- Keep this proportional to the change. Stop when further exploration is unlikely to alter the user's decision.
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.

