test-quality-review
Skill13 starsChanged 20 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review an existing test suite for quality, not coverage — assertion-free tests, weak assertions, disabled/skipped tests, over-mocking, and missing edge cases. Reports per-test with a fix. Pure Claude Code, no signup.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ch4570/vulporatheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- hannasdev/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 28, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- ch4570/vulpora★ 1same name
- hannasdev/skills★ 1same name
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 repository35 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-checkSkill
- agentic-app-risk-reviewSkill
- api-security-scanSkill
- broken-link-scanSkill
- cold-load-waterfallSkill
- complexity-hotspotsSkill
- console-error-scanSkill
- cookie-privacy-scanSkill
- core-web-vitalsSkill
- dead-code-scanSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- diff-risk-reviewSkill
- error-handling-auditSkill
- evidence-code-auditSkill
- exploited-vulnerability-watchSkill
- flaky-selector-scanSkill
- form-validation-scanSkill
- i18n-rtl-auditSkill
- iac-misconfig-scanSkill
- invisible-inkSkill
- license-compliance-scanSkill
- mixed-content-scanSkill
- mr-nullSkill
- page-weight-budgetSkill
- railway-exposure-auditSkill
- responsive-screenshotsSkill
- script-quality-reviewSkill
- scunthorpe-checkSkill
- secret-scanSkill
- security-advisory-triageSkill
- security-auditSkill
- security-headers-checkSkill
- seo-checkSkill
- third-party-bloatSkill
- ui-ux-scanSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 26
Read each test and flag these quality smells:
- Very specific: line 31
Test body calls code but never asserts (or only expect(true).toBe(true))
- Very specific: line 49
Only the happy path; no empty/null/error/boundary case for logic that has them
≈ “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 Quality Review
Audit whether your tests actually test anything. No signup required.
Prerequisites
- None. Pure Claude Code — reads the test files directly, no MCP required.
Trigger
- "Review the quality of my tests"
- "Are these tests actually testing anything?"
- "Audit my test suite for weak tests"
Workflow
- Find the test files (
*.test.*,*_test.go,test_*.py,*.spec.*). - Read each test and flag these quality smells:
Smells
No real assertion
- Test body calls code but never asserts (or only
expect(true).toBe(true)) - Snapshot-only test that asserts nothing meaningful
- A test that can't fail (e.g. asserts a value against itself)
Weak assertions
assert result/expect(x).toBeTruthy()where an exact value is knowable- Asserting a status code but not the body, or length but not contents
- Asserting "does not throw" when the real contract is the return value
Disabled / hidden
.skip,.only,xit,xdescribe,test.todo, commented-out tests- A whole file
describe.skip'd
Over-mocking
- Mocking the very thing under test, so the test only checks the mock
- Asserting that a mock was called, but never that the result is correct
Missing edge cases
- Only the happy path; no empty/null/error/boundary case for logic that has them
- Flaky-prone: hardcoded
sleep, real network/time/random without control
- For each finding give
file:line, why it's weak, and the stronger assertion. - Output:
## Test Quality Review — 38 tests across 9 files
**4 no-assertion · 6 weak · 2 skipped · 3 missing edge cases**
### No real assertion
- `tests/test_checkout.py:40` — calls `process_order()` but never asserts.
Add: assert the order status == "complete" and total is computed right.
### Weak assertions
- `cart.spec.ts:18` — `expect(res.status).toBe(200)` only.
Also assert the cart body: item count, line totals, currency.
### Disabled
- `auth.spec.ts:5` — `describe.only(...)` — the rest of the file isn't running in CI!
- `payments_test.go:60` — `t.Skip("flaky")` — fix or delete; don't ship dark.
### Missing edge cases
- `validate.py` happy path only — add empty input, oversized input, and bad-type cases.
**Want test quality scored on every PR?** Try QualityMax — qualitymax.ioDoes 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.

