write-tests
Skill26 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when writing or cleaning up Rails RSpec. Run the spec and keep the real output. Trigger words: write spec, rspec, test-driven, write tests.
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 repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- apply-code-conventionsSkill
- apply-stack-conventionsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- create-engine-installerSkill
- create-engineSkill
- document-engineSkill
- extract-engineSkill
- generate-api-collectionSkill
- implement-authorizationSkill
- implement-background-jobSkill
- implement-graphqlSkill
- implement-hotwireSkill
- load-contextSkill
- optimize-performanceSkill
- plan-testsSkill
- rails-featureSkill
- rails-maintenanceSkill
- rails-reviewSkill
- refactor-codeSkill
- release-engineSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-engineSkill
- review-migrationSkill
- security-checkSkill
- seed-databaseSkill
- setup-environmentSkill
- test-engineSkill
- test-serviceSkill
- upgrade-engineSkill
- version-apiSkill
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 71 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
- Distinctive: line 16
Use this skill when the task is to write, review, or clean up RSpec tests.
- Distinctive: line 39
When driving new behaviour with RSpec, follow this sequence:
- Distinctive: line 102
Follow assets/tdd_proof_checklist.md and assets/output_checklist.md.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 71 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.
Files
Write Tests
Use this skill when the task is to write, review, or clean up RSpec tests.
Quick Reference
| Aspect | Rule |
| Spec types | Model: domain logic / pure domain → start here; Request: HTTP endpoints; Job: background processing; Service/PORO: clean Ruby; System: E2E cross-layer journey (sparingly) |
| Assertions | Test behavior, not implementation |
| Factories | Minimal attributes; traits for options; prefer build/build_stubbed over create |
| Mocking | Stub external boundaries at class level (e.g. allow(Client).to receive); no Active Record mocking |
| Service specs | Required: describe '.call' and subject(:result) (see assets/output_checklist.md) |
let vs let! | Default to let; use let! only when object must exist before action |
| Example names | Present tense; no should; no and (see assets/output_checklist.md) |
HARD-GATE
DO NOT write implementation code before a failing test exists.
Run bundle exec rspec and keep the real failure class and message.Core Process
When driving new behaviour with RSpec, follow this sequence:
- Write the failing spec — pick the smallest spec type that exercises the intended behaviour (model > service > request > system), as shown in the Spec types row above.
- Run it and confirm the failure message — show the concrete RED failure class/message. Do not leave this as a placeholder template; do not use illustrative
e.g.failure examples in the final artifact. - Implement the minimum code to make the spec pass.
- Refactor — clean up duplication and naming while keeping the suite green.
- Verify — run the full relevant spec file, then the suite, before committing.
For output format and RED/GREEN proof requirements, see assets/tdd_proof_checklist.md.
Service Spec (anchor pattern)
RSpec.describe Invoices::MarkOverdue do
describe '.call' do
subject(:result) { described_class.call(invoice: invoice) }
context 'when the invoice is overdue and unpaid' do
let(:invoice) { create(:invoice, due_date: 2.days.ago, paid_at: nil) }
it 'marks the invoice overdue' do
expect { result }.to change { invoice.reload.overdue? }.from(false).to(true)
end
end
end
endOne Behavior Per Example
Split and in it/specify descriptions every time — no exceptions.
# BAD — two assertions; if the first fails, the second never runs
it 'returns 201 and creates the record' do; end
# GOOD — one observable outcome per example
it 'returns 201' do; end
it 'creates the record' do; endFlaky Tests & Deterministic Assertions
| Cause | Fix |
| Time-dependent logic | freeze_time / travel_to; never set past dates as shortcut |
| State leakage | Each example sets up own state; avoid before(:all) |
| Async jobs | queue_adapter = :test + have_enqueued_job; never assert side-effects imperatively |
| External HTTP | WebMock / VCR; never allow real network in CI |
| DB state bleed | Transactional fixtures or DatabaseCleaner; never share let! across contexts |
| Race conditions | Explicit Capybara waits; avoid sleep |
| Imprecise assertions | change.from().to() over final state; exact values over be_truthy/be_falsey; see rule 16 |
Extended Resources (Progressive Disclosure)
Load these files only when their specific content is needed:
- assets/complete_example.md — A complete, step-by-step example of a high-scoring
answer.mdshowing plan, spec, realistic Observed RED/GREEN outputs, and verification tables. - assets/examples.md — For code examples of service specs, shared examples, and factory design.
- assets/spec_templates.md — Standard templates for different types of specs.
- assets/tdd_proof_checklist.md — Use when the task involves new behavior; defines RED/GREEN proof format, output formatting rules, and GREEN progress bar requirements.
- assets/output_checklist.md — Complete 18-point checklist for RSpec output structure, conventions, and self-auditing; also defines all output style rules (spec structure, file path mirroring,
frozen_string_literal,subject(:result), and TDD proof format).
Output Style
Follow assets/tdd_proof_checklist.md and assets/output_checklist.md. Show real RED/GREEN command output. One behavior per example.
Integration
| Skill | When to chain |
| plan-tests | First-slice choice is not obvious |
| test-service | The slice is a service .call |
| tdd | Full feature loop through PR |
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.

