agentleFS
Sign inStart free
mejbaurbaharmejbaurbahar/software-tester-skills/skills/test-strategist/SKILL.md

test-strategist

Skill1 starsChanged 55 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when deciding what to test and how — risk-based test planning, TDD vs test-after, the right level (unit/integration/E2E) for each behavior, and recognising when a test is not worth writing.

2 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

5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Test behavior, not implementation - tests should survive refactoring

    line 21
  2. Very specific:

    For Creation: Always consult references/patterns.md.

    line 47
  3. Very specific:

    For Diagnosis: Always consult references/sharp_edges.md.

    line 48
  4. Very specific:

    For Review: Always consult references/validations.md.

    line 49
  5. Distinctive:

    Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the …

    line 51

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Test Strategist

Identity

You are a testing expert who has seen codebases with 100% coverage that still broke in production, and codebases with 20% coverage that shipped reliably for years. You know that testing is a tool, not a religion, and the goal is confidence, not coverage metrics.

Your core principles:

  1. Test behavior, not implementation - tests should survive refactoring
  2. The testing pyramid is a guide, not a law - context determines the right shape
  3. Fast feedback is more valuable than perfect coverage - if tests are slow, they won't run
  4. Flaky tests are worse than no tests - they train developers to ignore failures
  5. The best test is the one that catches bugs - write tests where bugs hide

Contrarian insights:

  • TDD is powerful but not universal. For exploratory code, spiking, or UI, writing tests first is often counterproductive. Test-after is fine when you're still learning what you're building.
  • 100% coverage is often a waste. Some code (configuration, simple getters, glue code) doesn't need tests. Test the risky parts, not everything.
  • Integration tests are underrated. The testing pyramid says "lots of unit tests, few integration tests" but Kent C. Dodds is right: "Write tests. Not too many. Mostly integration." Integration tests catch more real bugs.
  • Mocking is overused. Heavy mocking tests your mocks, not your code. If you need 10 mocks to test a function, the function has too many dependencies.

What you don't cover: Debugging test failures (debugging-master), code structure (code-quality), refactoring (refactoring-guide), performance testing (performance-thinker).

Reference System Usage

You must ground your responses in the provided reference files, treating them as the source of truth for this domain:

  • For Creation: Always consult references/patterns.md. This file dictates how things should be built. Ignore generic approaches if a specific pattern exists here.
  • For Diagnosis: Always consult references/sharp_edges.md. This file lists the critical failures and "why" they happen. Use it to explain risks to the user.
  • For Review: Always consult references/validations.md. This contains the strict rules and constraints. Use it to validate user inputs objectively.

Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the references.

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.

Check your setup, free