testing-strategy
Skill51 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Selects the one owning test for each acceptance criterion at the boundary where its behavior is observable, using repository evidence and maintenance cost. Use when deciding integration or E2E coverage.
54 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jDxve/avengers-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nisarth/claude-skills-storetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ccoalm/ccl-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- komluk/scaffoldingtheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- bmsuisse/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Cure-Consulting-Group/ProductEngineeringSkillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use api-contract-design, deploy-checklist 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.
MohOneXSkillapi-contract-design
Designs and reviews API contracts (REST, RPC, GraphQL, library interfaces) for evolvability, backward compatibility, and failure semantics. Use when defining new endpoints/interfaces, versioning an API, reviewing a schema, or deciding how breaking changes propagate to clients.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkilldeploy-checklist
Pre-deployment verification checklist. Use when about to ship a release, deploying a change with database migrations or feature flags, verifying CI status and approvals before going to production, or documenting rollback triggers ahead of time.
Also in 4 projects that use this
xenitV1Skillreact-patterns
Modern React patterns and principles. Hooks, composition, performance, TypeScript best practices.
Also in 4 projects that use this
AnthropicSkilltech-debt
Identify, categorize, and prioritize technical debt. Trigger with "tech debt", "technical debt audit", "what should we refactor", "code health", or when the user asks about code quality, refactoring priorities, or maintenance backlog.
Also in 4 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillerror-handling
统一错误处理系统。在添加 API 端点、修改错误处理、添加前端 API 调用、编写错误相关测试时使用。
Also in 5 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillapi-design
Guide for designing and documenting RESTful APIs. Use when asked to design an API, create endpoints, or document an API.
Also in 9 projects that use this
- +4 more from anthropics
- +1 more from microsoft
Other versions54 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 54
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- chthollyphile/folia-major★ 12ksame name
- Community-Access/accessibility-agents★ 409same name
- AnastasiyaW/claude-code-config★ 214same name
- AnastasiyaW/codex-claude-code-config★ 214same name
- irahardianto/awesome-agv★ 157same name
- Blushyes/reef★ 84same name
- addxai/enterprise-harness-engineering★ 44same name
- drafthq/draft★ 40same name
- zakariaf/Flutter-Skills★ 32same name
44 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-rulesSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- metacognitionSkill
- testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 44 edited versions we read keep these.
10
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 17
Check the existing owner: When an established test owns the claim at that boundary with assertions that detect its material failure, update …
- Distinctive: line 19
use integration when the behavior is observable at a component, persistence, or process boundary.
- Distinctive: line 20
use E2E when the behavior is observable only across the complete journey.
- Distinctive: line 21
leave the cases of a calculation, parsing, or branching rule inside the behavior to that rule's unit test.
- Distinctive: line 22
Compare cost: Consider setup, execution time, brittleness, maintenance, and diagnostic value using repository evidence rather than fixed …
- Distinctive: line 25
No new integration or E2E test is a valid conclusion when existing tests already own each claim.
- Distinctive: line 41
Before adding a test:
- Distinctive: line 43
search the existing suite for equivalent behavior.
- Distinctive: line 46
keep one representative proof when several candidates observe the same risk.
- Distinctive: line 61
Every selected test traces to an observable requirement or accepted contract.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 44 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 Strategy
Purpose
Select one owning test per behavioral claim at the boundary where the claim is observable, as testing defines. Candidate discovery does not create an obligation to implement every technically valid test.
Selection Process
For each acceptance criterion that may require integration or E2E proof:
- Name the observable boundary: Identify the interaction, persisted effect, process, or user journey that must be proven.
- Check the existing owner: When an established test owns the claim at that boundary with assertions that detect its material failure, update it rather than adding another.
- Select the owning level:
- use integration when the behavior is observable at a component, persistence, or process boundary;
- use E2E when the behavior is observable only across the complete journey;
- leave the cases of a calculation, parsing, or branching rule inside the behavior to that rule's unit test.
- Compare cost: Consider setup, execution time, brittleness, maintenance, and diagnostic value using repository evidence rather than fixed universal scores.
- Retain valuable proof: Select a new test only when its regression-detection value justifies that cost.
No new integration or E2E test is a valid conclusion when existing tests already own each claim.
Priority
Prioritize proof for:
- core user or consumer journeys;
- shared or public contracts;
- persisted state transitions;
- security, authorization, compliance, or irreversible effects;
- integrations with demonstrated failure risk.
Priority does not determine test level. Use the narrowest boundary that can observe the prioritized behavior.
Deduplication
Before adding a test:
- search the existing suite for equivalent behavior;
- identify overlapping proof at other levels;
- extend existing coverage when that remains clear and maintainable;
- keep one representative proof when several candidates observe the same risk.
Selection Record
Record only decisions needed by planning or review:
Acceptance criterion: [identifier or behavior]
Selected proof: existing | unit | integration | E2E | none
Boundary observed: [observable interaction or result]
Reason: [why this test owns the claim at this boundary]Completion Check
- Every selected test traces to an observable requirement or accepted contract.
- Each claim has one owning test, and an existing owner was updated rather than duplicated.
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.

