agentleFS
igmarinigmarin/rails-agent-skills/skills/plan-tests/SKILL.md

plan-tests

Skill26 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when choosing the first failing spec for a Rails change. One minimal example opens the gate. Trigger words: first failing test, what test first, TDD, spec selection.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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:

    Start at the highest-value boundary that proves the behavior with the least unnecessary setup.

    line 45
  2. Distinctive:

    Write one failing example: Keep it minimal; one example is enough to open the gate.

    line 51
  3. Distinctive:

    When completing test planning, produce a brief structured summary and populate the full plan using assets/first_slice_template.md.

    line 116

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Plan Tests

Quick Reference

Change typeFirst specPathWhy
API contract, params, status code, JSON shapeRequest specspec/requests/Proves the real HTTP contract
Domain rule on a cohesive record or value objectModel specspec/models/Fast feedback on domain behavior
Multi-step orchestration across collaboratorsService specspec/services/Focuses on the workflow boundary
Enqueue/run/retry/discard behaviorJob specspec/jobs/Captures async semantics directly
Critical Turbo/Stimulus or browser-visible flowSystem specspec/system/Use only when browser interaction is the real risk
Engine routing, generators, host integrationEngine specspec/requests/ or engine pathNormal app specs miss engine wiring — see test-engine
Bug fixReproduction specWhere the bug is observedProves the fix and prevents regression

HARD-GATE

CHECKPOINT: Test Design Review

1. Present: Show the failing spec(s) written
2. Ask:
   - Does this test cover the right behavior?
   - Is the boundary correct (request vs service vs model)?
   - Are the most important edge cases represented?
   - Is the failure reason correct (feature missing, not setup error)?
3. Confirm: Proceed after the test design meets the accepted requirements and RED is observed.

Core Process

Start at the highest-value boundary that proves the behavior with the least unnecessary setup.

Steps

  1. Name the behavior: State the user-visible outcome or invariant to prove.
  2. Locate the boundary: Decide where the behavior is observed first — HTTP request, service entry point, model rule, job execution, engine integration, or external adapter. Use the Quick Reference table to map the change type to the right spec type.
  3. Write one failing example: Keep it minimal; one example is enough to open the gate. List additional cases as follow-up coverage.
  4. Suggest the path: Name the likely spec path using normal Rails conventions (e.g. spec/requests/..., spec/services/..., spec/jobs/..., spec/models/...).
  5. Run and validate: Confirm the failure is because the behavior is missing, not because the setup is broken.
  6. Hand off: Continue with the skill that fits the slice — write-tests for general spec writing, test-service for service-layer coverage, or test-engine for engine integration.

Examples

Good: New JSON Endpoint

# Behavior: POST /orders validates params and returns 201 with JSON payload
# First slice: request spec
# Suggested path: spec/requests/orders/create_spec.rb

RSpec.describe "POST /orders", type: :request do
  let(:user) { create(:user) }
  let(:valid_params) { { order: { product_id: create(:product).id, quantity: 1 } } }

  before { sign_in user }

  it "creates an order and returns 201" do
    post orders_path, params: valid_params, as: :json
    expect(response).to have_http_status(:created)
    expect(response.parsed_body["id"]).to be_present
  end
end

Good: New Orchestration Service

# Behavior: Orders::CreateOrder validates inventory, persists, and enqueues follow-up work
# First slice: service spec
# Suggested path: spec/services/orders/create_order_spec.rb

RSpec.describe Orders::CreateOrder do
  subject(:result) { described_class.call(user: user, product: product, quantity: 1) }

  let(:user)    { create(:user) }
  let(:product) { create(:product, stock: 5) }

  it "returns a successful result with the new order" do
    expect(result).to be_success
    expect(result.order).to be_persisted
  end
end

Pitfalls

PitfallWhat to do
Starting with a PORO spec because it is easyEasy ≠ high-signal — choose the boundary that proves the real behavior
Writing three spec types before running anyPick one slice, run it, prove the failure, then proceed
Defaulting to one spec type for everythingMatch the spec type to the layer where the real risk lives (HTTP, domain, async, browser)
Jumping to system specs too earlyReserve for critical browser flows that lower layers cannot prove

Extended Resources (Progressive Disclosure)

Load these files only when their specific content is needed:

  • assets/first_slice_template.md — Use when documenting the test plan; provides a structured template for behavior, boundary decision, opening gate spec, and follow-up coverage

Output Style

When completing test planning, produce a brief structured summary and populate the full plan using assets/first_slice_template.md. The summary must cover:

  • Behavior — user-visible outcome being proved
  • First Slice — spec type, file path, and boundary rationale
  • Opening Gate — expected RED failure message and confirmation that failure reason is "feature missing, not setup error"
  • Follow-up Coverage — bulleted list of additional cases deferred from the initial gate
  • Design Checkpoint — confirmation that behavior, boundary, edge cases, and failure reason are all validated

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.