agentleFS
shinprshinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplate/.claude/skills-en/typescript-testing/SKILL.md

typescript-testing

Skill236 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Applies repository-aware TypeScript test design, behavior evidence, isolation, and mock-boundary criteria. Use when writing or reviewing unit tests.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈13

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Vitest: Use when selected by repository configuration or existing tests

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify behavior of individual functions or classes

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify coordination between multiple components

    line 32
  4. Distinctive:

    Use real in-process components that are part of the behavior under test.

    line 33
  5. Distinctive:

    Verify flows that implement a primary acceptance criterion or cross an in-process component boundary

    line 34
  6. Distinctive:

    Test suites: Names describing target features or situations

    line 48
  7. Distinctive:

    Test cases: Names describing expected behavior

    line 49
  8. Distinctive:

    Keep every committed test active.

    line 53
  9. Distinctive:

    Verify results, not invocation order or count.

    line 64
  10. Very specific:

    Use fast-check in fc.assert(fc.property(...)) form when a Design Doc AC carries a Property annotation.

    line 85
  11. Distinctive:

    Use the CI-configured database harness when present.

    line 111
  12. Distinctive:

    Use an in-memory database only when the verified behavior is dialect-independent.

    line 113
  13. Distinctive:

    Use a dedicated test database when the repository already provisions and isolates one.

    line 114
  14. Distinctive:

    When none is available and data-layer correctness is the target, stop and report the missing environment prerequisite.

    line 116

≈ “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

TypeScript Testing Rules

Prerequisite Detection

Inspect package.json, the lockfile, test configuration, and existing test imports before selecting a framework or command. Apply Vitest-specific rules only when Vitest is configured; otherwise use the repository's configured TypeScript test harness while preserving the behavior, isolation, and evidence rules below. If no runnable harness is identifiable, report the inspected paths and missing command or configuration.

Test Framework

  • Vitest: Use when selected by repository configuration or existing tests
  • Test imports: import { describe, it, expect, beforeEach, vi } from 'vitest'
  • Mock creation: Use vi.mock()

Basic Testing Policy

Quality Requirements

  • Regression protection: concentrate tests on critical paths, business logic, and behavior whose regression would matter. Add a test when an unguarded behavior creates a material regression risk
  • Independence: Each test can run independently without depending on other tests
  • Reproducibility: Control time, randomness, environment values, and external I/O so identical inputs produce the same observable result
  • Readability: Each test names one behavior, separates setup/action/assertion, and keeps fixtures limited to values used by that behavior

Test Types and Scope

  1. Unit Tests
    • Verify behavior of individual functions or classes
    • Mock all external dependencies
  2. Integration Tests
    • Verify coordination between multiple components
    • Use real in-process components that are part of the behavior under test; for external I/O see Mock Scope Decision
    • Verify flows that implement a primary acceptance criterion or cross an in-process component boundary
  3. Cross-functional Verification
    • When a new feature reaches a shared integration point, continuity of the existing feature becomes a proof obligation if its failure would break a primary user journey or public contract, or degrade a secondary observable behavior. Prove it at the cheapest boundary that can expose its failure
    • Verification pattern: Existing feature operation -> Enable new feature -> Verify continuity of existing features
    • Success criteria: Preserve the response fields and observable behavior named by the source acceptance criteria; apply a processing-time threshold only when a requirement or project configuration defines its value and measurement method
    • Designed for automatic execution in CI/CD pipelines

Test Implementation Conventions

Directory Structure and Naming

  • Tests live in a __tests__/ directory beside the module under test
  • Test files: {target-file-name}.test.ts
  • Integration test files: {target-file-name}.int.test.ts
  • Test suites: Names describing target features or situations
  • Test cases: Names describing expected behavior

Test Code Quality Rules

Keep every committed test active. Repair a test that protects current behavior. Remove a test when its behavior is no longer required and the source requirement or implementation contract confirms the removal, or when another retained test fails for every regression the removed test detects.

Test Quality Criteria

Boundary and Error Case Coverage

Cover the boundary and error behavior the accepted contract defines; derive cases from that contract instead of adding generic edge-case permutations.

Literal Expected Values

Use expected values that are independent of the implementation calculation: state the contract's value directly as a literal, or take it from a separate authoritative fixture or specification. An expectation computed from the same constants or formula as the subject passes even when both are wrong. When a mock supplies the input, the expected value differs from the mock's return value wherever the implementation transforms it.

Result-Based Verification

Verify results, not invocation order or count.

Meaningful Assertions

Each test asserts the property its consumer depends on and the state the operation established, not merely that a value came back.

Capability Probe Postconditions

A probe that checks whether something works passes only when it uses the consumer's boundary and asserts the exact property the consumer needs.

Command exit status, successful import, and object existence show the thing is reachable, so treat them as the probe's preconditions and put the consumer-facing property in the assertion.

Probe intentSetup evidence (insufficient alone)Assert instead
The module is usableimport resolves, expect(mod).toBeDefined()Call the exported function through the consumer's entry point and assert its returned value or effect
The command worksExit code 0The output, file, or state change the caller consumes
The config is appliedThe config file parsesThe observable behavior the config is supposed to change
The migration ranThe command reported successA query through the real engine returns the migrated shape

Mock Scope Decision

Use real implementations for every in-process component whose coordination is under test. Substitute a direct external I/O dependency when the test targets higher-layer behavior; use the real engine or a production-equivalent test instance when the external adapter, query, migration, or service contract itself is the target. When substituting, still assert the request the subject sends and the response shape it accepts, so the boundary contract stays verified.

Property-based Testing (fast-check)

Use fast-check in fc.assert(fc.property(...)) form when a Design Doc AC carries a Property annotation.

Mock Type Safety Enforcement

Type a mock to the surface the subject under test actually consumes — Pick<T, 'usedMethod'> — rather than the full interface, so an unused method changing shape does not break the test and a consumed one does. Constrain mock object literals with satisfies against that picked type so an extra or misnamed property fails at compile time.

Data Layer Testing

What Mocks Cannot Verify

Mocks validate call patterns, so these data-layer properties pass through undetected under mock-only testing:

  • Schema mismatches (table names, column names, data types)
  • Query correctness (joins, filters, aggregations, grouping)
  • Database constraints (NOT NULL, UNIQUE, foreign keys)
  • Migration compatibility (schema changes that leave code out of sync)

Routing rule: when one of these properties is the target — including the repository or data-access implementation itself — verify against a real engine per the ladder below. When data access is a dependency rather than the subject, mocks are correct: business logic receiving data (mock the repository, test the service), error-handling paths (connection failures, timeouts), and unit tests where the data layer is not under test.

Real Database Testing (Environment-Dependent)

Options for verifying data layer correctness against a real database engine:

  • Containerized databases for CI environments
  • In-memory databases for fast feedback (note: dialect differences may mask issues)
  • Dedicated test databases with seed data

Select the first option that matches repository evidence:

  1. Use the CI-configured database harness when present.
  2. Otherwise use the same database engine in a container when container execution is available.
  3. Use an in-memory database only when the verified behavior is dialect-independent; record the dialect behavior left unproven.
  4. Use a dedicated test database when the repository already provisions and isolates one.

When none is available and data-layer correctness is the target, stop and report the missing environment prerequisite. A mock-only result is not evidence of query, schema, constraint, or migration correctness.

AI-Generated Code and Schema Awareness

Generated data-access code can be syntactically correct while referencing schema elements that do not exist, and mock-based tests pass either way. Design Docs therefore carry explicit schema references, so review can cross-check documented schema against the data-access code.

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.