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
- 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 · 1
- rpraharaj/ai-sdlc★ 023% same
Wrote their own version · 75
- 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
65 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 repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- commitSkill
- cut-releaseSkill
- data-changeSkill
- debugSkill
- engineering-barSkill
- explain-codeSkill
- explore-codebaseSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- handoffSkill
- implement-changeSkill
- incident-triageSkill
- lean-reviewSkill
- open-prSkill
- performanceSkill
- production-passSkill
- ready-to-mergeSkill
- record-decisionSkill
- refactor-safelySkill
- resolve-conflictsSkill
- revert-changeSkill
- review-changeSkill
- security-passSkill
- shape-workSkill
- ship-notesSkill
- start-projectSkill
- upgrade-depsSkill
- verify-uiSkill
- write-architectureSkill
- write-designSkill
- write-dev-tasksSkill
- write-docsSkill
- write-prdSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 12
Add tests that match this repository.
- Very specific: line 14
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.
- Distinctive: line 18
Read AGENTS.md Test command if present.
- Distinctive: line 28
Before the first new test, name the seam(s) in one line.
- Distinctive: line 50
Put new tests next to existing ones of the same kind.
- Distinctive: line 51
Run the focused file or filter, then the repo Test command if it is known and reasonable.
- Distinctive: line 52
Keep the command output. If it fails, fix the test or the code.
- Distinctive: line 64
Do not commit unless asked.
“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
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
- Read
AGENTS.mdTest command if present. - Else take the test command from the manifest or CI (same rules as
explore-codebase). - 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
- Seam(s) tested
- Runner and command
- Files added or edited
- Behaviors covered
- Command output (pass/fail). If unverified, say unverified.
Do not commit unless asked.
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.

