review-test-style
Skill73 starsChanged 7 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review touched tests and test-adjacent code for style, Result-returning patterns, panic helpers, unwrap/expect use, and obvious coverage gaps. Use when a broad review needs a dedicated test pass or when the user asks for test-review specifically.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-learningSkill
- bump-rfcSkill
- closeoutSkill
- create-github-issueSkill
- create-planSkill
- create-pr-descriptionSkill
- fixSkill
- flag-compiler-bugSkill
- fleet-auditSkill
- hello-worldSkill
- loopSkill
- orchestrate-parallel-workSkill
- ralph-loopSkill
- review-and-fixSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-code-smellsSkill
- review-docs-claimsSkill
- review-incan-source-qualitySkill
- review-orchestrateSkill
- review-rfcSkill
- review-rust-proseSkill
- review-scopeSkill
- reviewSkill
- start-workSkill
- testSkill
- write-commit-messageSkill
- write-rfcSkill
- yeet-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 28
Write a slice report at:
- Very specific: line 32
Do not write to the canonical .agents/state/review-report.md.
- Distinctive: line 42
Only flag a coverage gap when the new behavior or branch is not exercised anywhere in the touched tests.
- Distinctive: line 43
Keep this pass focused on test quality and coverage, not general code quality.
- Distinctive: line 47
Keep slice reports findings-first.
- Distinctive: line 70
If there are no findings, say so explicitly.
≈ “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
Review Test Style — Incan Compiler
Purpose
/review-test-style is a narrow report-only reviewer for touched tests and code changes that imply missing test coverage.
Own:
- panic helpers and panic-style control flow in touched tests
- unwrap/expect in tests
- fallible tests not returning
Result - obvious missing targeted coverage for new behavior
Do not own:
- rustdoc prose
- docs truthfulness
- architecture
- final branch-clean judgment
Output artifact
Write a slice report at:
.agents/state/review-report.test-style.md
Do not write to the canonical .agents/state/review-report.md.
Workflow
- Review the touched tests and the code changes that should have tests.
- Flag:
.unwrap()/.expect()in testspanic!-driven helper/control flow whereResult+ assertions would be clearer- missing targeted tests for new CLI, lifecycle, or semantic behavior
- stale snapshots or missing integration coverage when behavior changed end-to-end
- Only flag a coverage gap when the new behavior or branch is not exercised anywhere in the touched tests. If integration coverage already exercises the behavior, do not demand redundant parser/unit duplication without a concrete reason.
- Keep this pass focused on test quality and coverage, not general code quality.
Slice report shape
Keep slice reports findings-first. Only list clean surfaces when they are materially useful to the orchestrator.
# Review Slice Report
- role: test-style
- worker: <agent-id or stable label>
- status: in_progress | clean | blocked
## Scope
- assigned files:
- loaves/toolchain/incan-cli/tests/integration_tests.rs
## Findings
- [ ] warning | test-gap | panic helper | loaves/toolchain/incan-cli/src/lib.rs:84
Test helper uses panic-oriented control flow instead of `Result` + assertions.
## Reviewed Clean Surfaces
- loaves/toolchain/incan-cli/tests/integration_tests.rs — touched lifecycle coverage reviewed; no additional findingsIf there are no findings, say so explicitly.
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.

