agentleFS
rpraharajrpraharaj/ai-engineer/skills/write-tests/SKILL.md

write-tests

Skill1 starsChanged 15 days agoMITView on GitHub

Add tests for a change using this repository's runner and style, at public seams, with independent expected values. Use when the user asks for tests or coverage, after an implementation, for a regression check, or for a red-green loop.

76 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-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

  • dzhngSkill

    design-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-bullshitSkill

    compare-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

  • LucasMatuszewskiSkill

    audit-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 Checks for duplicates, outdated info, naming conflicts, wrong technical facts, and files over 200 lines.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

  • wolverin0Skill

    audit-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

  • rhnfzlSkill

    explore-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

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 71 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Add tests that match this repository.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    When the user asks for test-first / red-green: one failing test at a confirmed seam, then only enough code to pass, then the next slice.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Read AGENTS.md Test command if present.

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Before the first new test, name the seam(s) in one line.

    line 28
  5. Distinctive:

    Put new tests next to existing ones of the same kind.

    line 50
  6. Distinctive:

    Run the focused file or filter, then the repo Test command if it is known and reasonable.

    line 51
  7. Distinctive:

    Keep the command output. If it fails, fix the test or the code.

    line 52
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not commit unless asked.

    line 64

“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.

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

Write tests

Add tests that match this repository. Do not introduce a new test framework, assertion library, or folder layout.

When the user asks for test-first / red-green: one failing test at a confirmed seam, then only enough code to pass, then the next slice. Do not write a bulk suite and then implement. Refactor is refactor-safely or lean-review, not this loop.

Detect the runner

  1. Read AGENTS.md Test command if present.
  2. Else take the test command from the manifest or CI (same rules as explore-codebase).
  3. Open 2–3 existing tests nearest the change. Copy file name pattern, location, fixtures, case names, and how they assert errors.

If no runner or tests exist, report that fact. When the user has requested tests, use the named toolchain's standard test facility if available and document that choice; this already authorizes a minimal harness. Ask only if a new dependency or unresolved toolchain decision is needed.

Seams

A seam is the public boundary you observe: the interface a caller already uses. Tests live at seams, not against private methods or internal collaborators.

Before the first new test, name the seam(s) in one line. Prefer an existing seam over a new one. If the module's interface itself is unclear, say so and test the highest existing boundary you can.

What to cover

Smallest set that would have failed before the change, one behavior per cycle:

  • One happy path
  • Edge / boundary this code can hit
  • Error or missing-input path if the change handles failure

Do not add:

  • Tests that only assert "does not throw"
  • Tests locked to incidental internals if neighboring tests assert behavior
  • Mocks of private collaborators, private-method tests, or DB peeks that bypass the public interface
  • Tautologies — the expected value must not be recomputed the same way the code computes it (expect(add(a,b)).toBe(a+b)). Use an independent literal or a worked example from the spec
  • Tests for code you did not change, unless a characterization harness for refactor-safely

If this is a regression for debug, start with a test that reproduces the bug. Confirm it fails on the previous revision when you can, using an isolated temporary checkout or copied fixture that preserves all working files and staging, then leave it passing with the fix. Do not comment out product code to simulate the old behavior.

Write and run

  • Put new tests next to existing ones of the same kind.
  • Run the focused file or filter, then the repo Test command if it is known and reasonable.
  • Keep the command output. If it fails, fix the test or the code; do not skip the case.

Load engineering-bar (paths in that skill) when the tests required production-code changes. Keep those changes as small as the tests demand.

Done

  1. Seam(s) tested
  2. Runner and command
  3. Files added or edited
  4. Behaviors covered
  5. Command output (pass/fail). If unverified, say unverified.

Do not commit unless asked.

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.