review-tests
Skill125 starsChanged 12 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Reviews test quality and coverage. Use when checking that a diff has adequate tests, checking a new or edited test, or auditing the test suite of a codebase.
9 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- wufei-png/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
- desbma/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- Arasz/ai-badgertheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- YoniChechik/claude-code-configtheir own version, first seen Sep 18, 2026
- cjohnhanson/almanactheir own version, first seen Aug 20, 2026
- cjohnhanson/tiskettheir own version, first seen Aug 20, 2026
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws★ 11ksame name
- Arasz/ai-badger★ 3same name
- cjohnhanson/almanac★ 1same name
- cjohnhanson/tisket★ 1same name
- desbma/agent-skills★ 1same name
- wufei-png/skills★ 1same name
- hossainks/claude-skill★ 0same name
- simu5116/ClaudeCode★ 0same name
- YoniChechik/claude-code-config★ 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.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- fluentSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-behaviorsSkill
- review-documentationSkill
- review-skillsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Read the code under review to understand what should be tested.
- Very specific: line 18
Read references/tests.md for test-writing standards.
- Distinctive: line 21
Read it alongside the code it exercises, its setup and fixtures, and any shared helpers.
- Distinctive: line 25
Check the code for behavior that lacks tests.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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
Purpose
Decide whether the code under review is adequately tested. Identify testable code that lacks tests, and improvements that would make the test suite more likely to catch bugs or the codebase safer to refactor.
Scope
The invoking layer decides what's in scope. For a diff-scoped review, that's the code and tests changed in the diff. For a full-codebase audit, that's the entire codebase and test suite. Check the tests for quality and check the code for tests that should exist but don't.
Method
- Read the code under review to understand what should be tested.
- Read
references/tests.mdfor test-writing standards. Read any related guides it points to for the code under review. - For each in-scope test:
- Read it alongside the code it exercises, its setup and fixtures, and any shared helpers.
- Evaluate against the standards in
references/tests.md. - Identify improvements.
- Check the code for behavior that lacks tests. For a diff-scoped review, look for changed code paths, edge cases, and error paths that no test covers. For a full-codebase audit, look for significant components with no test coverage.
- For each improvement, decide if it blocks shipping. Tests that pass without verifying behavior, flaky tests, and testable code shipped without tests typically block. Vague names, duplicated helpers, and style issues typically don't.
The invoking layer may add checks in addition to those above.
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.