agentleFS
Sign inStart free
christofferbergjchristofferbergj/agent-skills/skills/engineering/pstack-tdd/SKILL.md

pstack-tdd

Skill1 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use in a Pstack bug fix when a cheap regression test can demonstrate failing-before and passing-after behavior.

2 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use the closest executable regression check instead: a targeted script, manual reproduction command, browser automation, snapshot …

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer no new test over a bad test.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not change tests merely to match a wrong implementation.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not weaken existing assertions unless the expected behavior has genuinely changed and the reason is clear.

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep the regression test focused on the bug.

    line 22
  6. Distinctive:

    If the bug is flaky, make the test deterministic where possible and document the signal being locked down.

    line 23
  7. Distinctive:

    If the bug exposes a broader class of failures, first land the focused regression path, then consider additional sibling coverage.

    line 24

≈ “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.

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

Pstack bug-fix evidence

  1. Identify the broken and intended behavior and a cheap executable regression path. Reuse an agreed public seam; invoke /tdd for the shared red/green and behavior-test discipline. Complete when the reproduction can distinguish this defect or the unavailable test path is explicit.
  2. Preserve the failing-before command, revision, and result. Confirm it fails for the intended reason. If it passes or fails for an unrelated reason, correct the test or reproduction before editing the implementation. Then fix the defect and rerun the same regression. Do not create a broad brittle harness for a small reversible fix. Complete when observed before/after behavior and relevant nearby checks support the fix.
  3. Report the original symptom, causal change, evidence, and any missing test or live-surface coverage. Complete when no skipped check is presented as a pass.

If a failing test is impractical

Use the closest executable regression check instead: a targeted script, manual reproduction command, browser automation, snapshot comparison, log assertion, or focused integration check.

Prefer no new test over a bad test. A bad test is one that mostly tests mocks, encodes current implementation details, depends on timing or unrelated global state, needs expensive infrastructure for a small fix, or would be deleted immediately after proving the fix.

Guardrails

  • Do not change tests merely to match a wrong implementation.
  • Do not weaken existing assertions unless the expected behavior has genuinely changed and the reason is clear.
  • Keep the regression test focused on the bug. Avoid broad fixture churn or unrelated coverage expansion.
  • If the bug is flaky, make the test deterministic where possible and document the signal being locked down.
  • If the bug exposes a broader class of failures, first land the focused regression path, then consider additional sibling coverage.

Download now (ZIP)

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