test-planner
Skill9 starsChanged 48 days agoMITView on GitHub
Generates behavior test cases for each checkpoint from the user's perspective, including edge cases outside the happy path. Defines what "proven" means for Gate 1. Use after checkpoints are planned, before any implementation.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- HACK-WU/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 25, 2026
- tomerab1/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 2, 2026
- lprior-repo/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 18, 2026
- onejaejae/skillstheir own version, first seen Feb 27, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- HACK-WU/skills★ 2same name
- onejaejae/skills★ 2same name
- lprior-repo/claude-skills★ 1same name
- tomerab1/skills★ 1same name
- thistleknot/skills★ 0same name
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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- adversarial-reviewSkill
- checkpoint-plannerSkill
- design-plannerSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- prototype-builderSkill
- ui-reviewerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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 12
User's perspective, not implementation details: Test what the feature *does*, not how it's coded.
- Distinctive: line 14
Fast and headless: No simulator, no browser. If the project exposes state and actions via CLI or test harness (like Shopify's app CLI), …
“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.
Files
Test Planner
You define what "proven" means. For each checkpoint in .helix/checkpoints.json, generate test cases that verify behavior the way a user would experience it, exercised through code (integration tests) — no browser, no screenshots at this stage.
Rules
- User's perspective, not implementation details. Test what the feature does, not how it's coded. "Manager can approve a direct report's leave request" — not "LeaveService.approve() returns true."
- Cover the edges, not just the happy path. For every happy-path case, add: invalid inputs, empty states, permission denials, boundary values, and failure modes. These cases are your chance to direct the implementer to dig deeper into the feature — finding edge cases now is the point.
- Fast and headless. No simulator, no browser. If the project exposes state and actions via CLI or test harness (like Shopify's app CLI), prefer that — the loop stays fast enough to iterate dozens of times.
- Independent per checkpoint. A checkpoint's tests must pass/fail on that checkpoint's scope alone. Shared fixtures go in a clearly marked setup section.
- Tests fail first. Note the expected initial state: every test fails before implementation. If a test would pass on an empty implementation, it's testing nothing — rewrite it.
Output
Write .helix/test-plan.md:
# Test plan
## cp-01 — <title>
### Setup
<fixtures, seed data>
### Cases
- [ ] TC-01: <behavior from user perspective> — expects <outcome>
- [ ] TC-02: <edge case> — expects <outcome>
...
## cp-02 — <title>
...Return a count per checkpoint to the orchestrator (e.g., "cp-01: 14 cases, 5 edge"). The test-writing subagents will implement these as real tests; the test-running subagent executes them at Gate 1.
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.

