assertion-patterns
Skill8 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Real output verification vs mock calls. Use when transforming T1-T4 violating tests to verify observable behavior.
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- anthropic-validatorSkill
- bug-magnet-dataSkill
- bulwark-brainstormSkill
- bulwark-researchSkill
- bulwark-scaffoldSkill
- bulwark-statuslineSkill
- bulwark-verifySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- component-patternsSkill
- continuous-feedbackSkill
- create-skillSkill
- create-subagentSkill
- fix-bugSkill
- governance-protocolSkill
- initSkill
- issue-debuggingSkill
- mock-detectionSkill
- pipeline-templatesSkill
- plan-creationSkill
- plan-to-tasksSkill
- product-ideationSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- setup-lspSkill
- spec-drift-checkSkill
- subagent-output-templatingSkill
- subagent-promptingSkill
- test-auditSkill
- test-classificationSkill
- test-fixture-creationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 35
Test files MUST import functions from actual production modules.
- Distinctive: line 44
Check if tested functions are imported vs defined inline
- Distinctive: line 53
Test files MUST NOT contain functions representing production logic.
- Very specific: line 56
Test functions (test_*, it(), describe())
- Very specific: line 57
Test helpers/fixtures (make_*, create_*, setup_*)
- Distinctive: line 68
Check naming patterns against allowed prefixes
- Very specific: line 287
Write diagnostic output to logs/diagnostics/assertion-patterns-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.yaml:
≈ “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
Assertion Patterns
Purpose
Transform T1-T4 violating assertions into real behavior verification. This skill provides pattern libraries for converting mock-based tests to tests that verify observable output.
When to Use
Load this skill when:
- Rewriting tests flagged by test-audit
- Generating verification scripts via bulwark-verify skill
- Implementing test-audit Step 7 rewrites
Prerequisite Checks (T0) - CRITICAL
Before checking T1-T4 violations, verify these prerequisites. Tests failing these checks are "testing nothing real" - they pass but provide zero confidence.
T0.1: Production Module Imports
Test files MUST import functions from actual production modules.
| Valid | Invalid |
import { calculate } from '../src/calculator' | Function defined within test file |
from calculator import add | def add(a, b): return a + b in test |
Detection:
- Scan test file for function definitions
- Check if tested functions are imported vs defined inline
- Flag if test calls functions not imported from production code
Violation Response:
"Test defines production logic inline. Move
{function_name}to production module and import it. Tests should verify production code, not self-defined code."
T0.2: Separation of Concerns
Test files MUST NOT contain functions representing production logic.
Allowed in test files:
- Test functions (
test_*,it(),describe()) - Test helpers/fixtures (
make_*,create_*,setup_*) - Mock factories (
mock_*,fake_*,stub_*) - Pytest fixtures (
@pytest.fixture)
Not allowed:
- Business logic functions
- Utility functions that should be in production
- Any function that would make sense in
src/
Detection:
- Identify all function definitions in test file
- Check naming patterns against allowed prefixes
- Flag functions that don't match test/helper patterns
T0.3: Function Naming Conventions
Functions in test files should follow specific naming patterns.
| Legitimate Prefixes | Purpose |
test_* | Test functions (pytest) |
_* (underscore) | Private helpers |
pytest_* | Pytest hooks |
make_*, create_* | Factory helpers |
mock_*, fake_*, stub_* | Mock factories |
setup_*, teardown_* | Lifecycle helpers |
Any other function definition raises suspicion - likely production code incorrectly placed in test files.
Pattern Categories
1. Function Call Verification
| Anti-Pattern (Mock) | Real Pattern |
expect(fn).toHaveBeenCalled() | const result = fn(); expect(result).toBe(expected) |
expect(fn).toHaveBeenCalledWith(arg) | const result = fn(arg); expect(result.field).toBeDefined() |
jest.spyOn(module, 'fn').mockReturnValue(x) | const result = module.fn(); expect(result).toBe(expected) |
Transformation example:
// BEFORE (T1 violation - mocking system under test)
jest.spyOn(calculator, 'add').mockReturnValue(5);
expect(calculator.add(2, 3)).toBe(5);
// AFTER (real verification)
expect(calculator.add(2, 3)).toBe(5); // Actually runs add()2. Process Spawn Verification
| Anti-Pattern (Mock) | Real Pattern |
jest.spyOn(cp, 'spawn').mockReturnValue(mockProc) | const proc = spawn(...); await waitForReady(proc) |
expect(spawn).toHaveBeenCalled() | expect(await isPortOpen(PORT)).toBe(true) |
expect(spawn).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cmd, args) | const output = execSync(cmd); expect(output).toContain(expected) |
Transformation example:
// BEFORE (T1 violation - mocking spawn)
const mockProcess = { on: jest.fn(), stdout: mockStream };
jest.spyOn(child_process, 'spawn').mockReturnValue(mockProcess);
await startProxy();
expect(child_process.spawn).toHaveBeenCalledWith('proxy', ['--port', '8080']);
// AFTER (real verification)
await startProxy();
expect(await checkPort(8080)).toBe(true); // Port actually open
const response = await fetch('http://localhost:8080/health');
expect(response.status).toBe(200); // Proxy actually responds3. File Operation Verification
| Anti-Pattern (Mock) | Real Pattern |
jest.mock('fs') | Use real fs with temp directory |
expect(fs.writeFile).toHaveBeenCalled() | expect(fs.existsSync(path)).toBe(true) |
expect(fs.readFile).toHaveBeenCalledWith(path) | const content = fs.readFileSync(path); expect(content).toContain('expected') |
Transformation example:
// BEFORE (T2 violation - call-only assertion)
await saveConfig(config);
expect(fs.writeFile).toHaveBeenCalled();
// AFTER (result verification)
await saveConfig(config);
expect(fs.existsSync(configPath)).toBe(true);
const saved = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(configPath, 'utf8'));
expect(saved.setting).toBe(config.setting);4. HTTP Request Verification
| Anti-Pattern (Mock) | Real Pattern |
jest.mock('node-fetch') | Use MSW or test server |
expect(fetch).toHaveBeenCalledWith(url) | const resp = await fetch(url); expect(resp.status).toBe(200) |
| Mock response data | Actual response from test server |
Transformation example:
// BEFORE (T3 violation - mocking integration boundary)
jest.mock('node-fetch');
fetch.mockResolvedValue({ json: () => ({ id: 1 }) });
const user = await fetchUser(1);
expect(fetch).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/api/users/1');
// AFTER (real integration with MSW)
import { setupServer } from 'msw/node';
import { rest } from 'msw';
const server = setupServer(
rest.get('/api/users/:id', (req, res, ctx) => {
return res(ctx.json({ id: req.params.id, name: 'Test User' }));
})
);
beforeAll(() => server.listen());
afterAll(() => server.close());
const user = await fetchUser(1); // Real fetch, intercepted at network level
expect(user.name).toBe('Test User');5. Database Verification
| Anti-Pattern (Mock) | Real Pattern |
expect(db.save).toHaveBeenCalled() | await db.save(data); const found = await db.find(id); expect(found).toBeDefined() |
expect(db.delete).toHaveBeenCalledWith(id) | await db.delete(id); expect(await db.find(id)).toBeNull() |
jest.mock('./database') | Use test database instance |
Transformation example:
// BEFORE (T2 violation - call-only)
await saveUser(user);
expect(db.insert).toHaveBeenCalledWith('users', user);
// AFTER (result verification)
await saveUser(user);
const saved = await db.findOne('users', { id: user.id });
expect(saved).toBeDefined();
expect(saved.email).toBe(user.email);T1-T4 Transformation Rules
T1: Mock System Under Test -> Remove mock, verify real output
The system under test should NEVER be mocked. Remove the mock and verify actual behavior.
// T1 violation: Mocking the function being tested
jest.spyOn(calculator, 'add').mockReturnValue(5);
expect(calculator.add(2, 3)).toBe(5); // Always passes regardless of implementation
// Fixed: Test real implementation
expect(calculator.add(2, 3)).toBe(5); // Fails if add() is brokenT2: Call-Only Assertion -> Add result assertion
Verifying a function was called is insufficient. Verify the RESULT of that call.
// T2 violation: Only checks call happened
await saveConfig(config);
expect(db.save).toHaveBeenCalled(); // Passes even if wrong data saved
// Fixed: Verify the actual saved data
await saveConfig(config);
const saved = await db.find(config.id);
expect(saved.value).toBe(config.value); // Fails if wrong data savedT3: Mock Integration Boundary -> Use test infrastructure
Integration tests should test real integration. Use MSW, test servers, or in-memory DBs.
// T3 violation: Mocking HTTP in integration test
jest.mock('node-fetch');
const data = await fetchUserData(id); // Not testing real HTTP
// Fixed: Use MSW to intercept at network level
const server = setupServer(rest.get('/api/user/:id', handler));
const data = await fetchUserData(id); // Real fetch, real HTTP, controlled responseT3+: Broken Integration Chain -> Chain real function outputs
Integration tests should chain real outputs through the pipeline.
// T3+ violation: Using mock data instead of real output
const mockOrder = { id: 1, items: [{ sku: 'ABC', qty: 2 }] };
await processOrder(mockOrder); // Not testing real order creation
// Fixed: Chain real function outputs
const order = await createOrder({ sku: 'ABC', qty: 2 }); // Real order
await processOrder(order); // Processes real order data
const result = await getOrderStatus(order.id);
expect(result.status).toBe('processed');Quick Reference: Violation to Pattern
| Violation | Pattern Category | Fix Strategy |
| T0.1 | Prerequisites | Move function to production, import it |
| T0.2 | Prerequisites | Extract non-test functions to src/ |
| T0.3 | Prerequisites | Rename or move functions |
| T1 | Function Call | Remove mock, call real function |
| T2 | Any category | Add result assertion after call |
| T3 | HTTP/DB/Process | Use MSW, test DB, or spawn real process |
| T3+ | Integration Chain | Chain real outputs, don't pass mocks |
Diagnostic Output
Write diagnostic output to logs/diagnostics/assertion-patterns-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.yaml:
skill: assertion-patterns
timestamp: {ISO-8601}
diagnostics:
t0_checks:
t0_1_imports: pass|fail
t0_2_separation: pass|fail
t0_3_naming: pass|fail
patterns_applied: [T1, T2, T3]
transformations_suggested: 3
files_analyzed: 1
completion_status: successDoes 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.

