write-tests
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Author tests for one PRD user story: unit, integration, and e2e cases plus any RLS policy or Stripe webhook fixture tests required. Run after test-setup is complete. Produces passing test files.
- Reads credentials
76 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Doist/todoist-aitheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- CheckPickerUpper/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Doist/todoist-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- aniketshukla1/sdlc-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- helmut-hoffer-von-ankershoffen/heinzeltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-librarytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
dzhngSkillclose-spec
When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).
Also in 5 projects that use this
dzhngSkilldesign-with-images
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.
Also in 5 projects that use this
transitive-bullshitSkillcompare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
Also in 5 projects that use this
LucasMatuszewskiSkillaudit-agents
Audit and maintain agent configuration files (.claude/agents, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, agent-memory). Checks for duplicates, outdated info, naming conflicts, wrong technical facts, and files over 200 lines. Fixes all issues and commits.
Also in 5 projects that use this
wolverin0Skillaudit-decisions
Standardize remediation decisions, baseline-policy entries, and legal-review banners for accepted, deferred, or policy-blocked audit findings.
Also in 4 projects that use this
rhnfzlSkillexplore-unknowns
Walk the user through mapping the unknowns of a task before, during, and after they build it, and hand them a four-quadrant map (settled ground, open decisions, taste, and landmines) they keep. Reach for this eagerly whenever a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the codebase or domain is unfamiliar, the user will "know it when they see it", a reference implementation must be understood before porting, a build-queue or architecture-changing task is about to start, a mid-build deviation needs capturing, or a finished change needs buy-in or verified understanding before merge. Trigger even when the skill is not named: "do a blindspot pass", "find my unknown unknowns", "interview me about this change", "brainstorm the approach for a task I am about to build", "help me scope this", "what am I missing here", "plan this before I build", "I know nothing about X in this codebase". When a territory profile is present it reads memory and the graph first and feeds the map into the build pipeline; without one it degrades to a plain general map. Not for trivial or mechanical tasks with clear acceptance criteria, single-fact lookups, pure debugging of a known symptom, or pure code review, those have their own tools. Do not use it to run the build itself; the map is the deliverable and implementation remains a separate task, whether it has not started or is already underway.
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +5 more from dzhng
Other versions76 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 76
- remix-run/remix★ 33ksame name
- elie222/inbox-zero★ 13ksame name
- getsentry/sentry-javascript★ 8.8ksame name
- dzhng/jevgrep★ 3.2ksame name
- meta-pytorch/OpenEnv★ 2.8ksame name
- huggingface/OpenEnv★ 2.8ksame name
- JamieMason/syncpack★ 2.1ksame name
- dzhng/skills★ 1.5ksame name
- clice-io/clice★ 1.4ksame name
- ryokun6/ryos★ 1.3ksame name
66 more not listed
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 repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- build-featureSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- compliance-checkSkill
- design-architectureSkill
- design-pricingSkill
- design-schemaSkill
- design-uiSkill
- helpSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- map-flowsSkill
- qa-planSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-billingSkill
- setup-deploySkill
- setup-stackSkill
- startSkill
- studio-statusSkill
- test-setupSkill
- threat-modelSkill
- validate-ideaSkill
- write-prdSkill
The file
Files
Author a complete, passing test suite for one user story, covering every layer the QA plan prescribes for that story's risk profile. Non-autonomous: identify the target, propose cases, get approval, write, then prove green. Never use real secrets or live network calls in tests.
Phases
- Load context — read
docs/specs/qa-plan.mdto understand the pyramid and conventions; readdocs/specs/prd.mdto list available stories. Ask the user which story or feature to target. Ifqa-plan.mdis missing, stop and direct to/qa-plan; if the test scaffold is absent (novitest.config.ts), stop and direct to/test-setup. - Propose cases — for the chosen story, enumerate the specific test cases at each layer: (a) unit tests for pure functions/helpers; (b) integration tests for server actions, route handlers, and API routes (using mocked DB/Stripe calls); (c) e2e tests for the critical user path in Playwright; (d) RLS policy tests asserting that other-tenant rows are inaccessible; (e) Stripe webhook tests using
stripe.webhooks.generateTestHeaderString(or the Stripe CLIstripe trigger) with a signed test payload — never real keys. Present the list with a note on what each case catches. Underfull, confirm each layer separately; underlean, one confirmation for the full list; undersolo, proceed and summarize. Get explicit approval before writing any test code. - Write — on approval, author the test files in the locations prescribed by the QA plan (e.g.
src/__tests__/,e2e/). Follow conventions fromdocs/specs/qa-plan.mdand, if present, the.claude/rules/tests.mdrule. Reference secrets by env-var name only (e.g.process.env.STRIPE_WEBHOOK_SECRET) — never embed literal secret-shaped strings. Use seeded or in-memory test data, not production data. - Run green — execute
npm test(orvitest run) for unit/integration tests andnpm run test:e2efor Playwright tests; show the output. If any test fails, diagnose the root cause, fix the test or the fixture, and re-run. Repeat until the full suite for this story is green; if the suite cannot be made green within the session, surface the remaining failures for the user to resolve and still point to/code-review. Underfull, show each failure and proposed fix before applying; underleanorsolo, fix and re-run, then show the final result. - Next step — once the suite is green, point to
/code-reviewto review the new tests alongside the feature code.
Output
Passing test files (unit, integration, e2e, and fixture tests as applicable) for one user story. No application code is modified beyond test utilities.
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.

