recipe-add-integration-tests
Skill712 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Add integration/E2E tests to existing codebase using Design Docs
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shinpr/codex-workflowstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- shinpr/codex-workflows★ 39same 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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-principlesSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- external-resource-contextSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- recipe-buildSkill
- recipe-designSkill
- recipe-diagnoseSkill
- recipe-front-adjustSkill
- recipe-front-buildSkill
- recipe-front-designSkill
- recipe-front-planSkill
- recipe-front-reviewSkill
- recipe-fullstack-buildSkill
- recipe-fullstack-implementSkill
- recipe-implementSkill
- recipe-planSkill
- recipe-quality-profileSkill
- recipe-reverse-engineerSkill
- recipe-reviewSkill
- recipe-update-docSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- testing-principlesSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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
- Distinctive: line 12
Context: Test addition workflow for existing implementations (backend, frontend, or fullstack)
- Very specific: line 21
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
- Distinctive: line 29
Test implementation → delegate to task-executor
- Distinctive: line 30
Test review → delegate to integration-test-reviewer
- Distinctive: line 57
Follow subagents-orchestration-guide HC-06 to verify generated paths and coverage of empty lanes before Step 3.
≈ “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.
Files
Explicit User Instruction: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in this recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.
Execute Skill: llm-friendly-context before writing Agent prompts, handoffs, or generated artifacts. Execute Skill: subagents-orchestration-guide before making workflow decisions, invoking agents, or resolving findings.
Context: Test addition workflow for existing implementations (backend, frontend, or fullstack)
Orchestrator Definition
Core Identity: "I am an orchestrator."
Local authority gate: Make this recipe's workflow decisions and validate each returned result directly; delegate semantic deliverable production to the named specialist.
Review Resolution Gate [MANDATORY]: Resolve every actionable deliverable-review finding through subagents-orchestration-guide Review Resolution before correction or progression.
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
Execution Gate: Complete Steps 1-7 in order for each generated layer. Advance only through the current step's stated output or response gate; skip work only when its stated condition is false. Report completion after every layer has completed its review, quality, commit, and retained-limitation retry.
Why Delegate: Orchestrator's context is shared across all steps. Direct implementation consumes context needed for review and quality check phases. Subagents work in isolated context.
Execution Method:
- Skeleton generation → delegate to acceptance-test-generator
- Test implementation → delegate to task-executor
- Test review → delegate to integration-test-reviewer
- Quality checks → delegate to quality-fixer
At each Agent invocation below, build the prompt as a mechanical extraction: copy the named source values into the exact fields, apply only the declared serialization, then invoke immediately.
Document paths: $ARGUMENTS
Prerequisites
- At least one Design Doc must exist (created manually or via reverse-engineer)
- Existing implementation to test
Execution Flow
Step 1: Discover and Validate Documents
Resolve the documents named by $ARGUMENTS; when a supplied path is stale, use repository evidence to locate its intended artifact. Use the requested feature and layers as the discovery boundary. Resolve applicable Design Docs and UI Specs/PRDs within that boundary, including same-feature frontend/backend counterparts when fullstack work is requested, even when the named document does not link them. Use feature identity, governing requirements, and implementation ownership to establish relevance; stop once the requested layers and proof boundaries are covered. An explicitly single-layer request remains single-layer. Classify documents from their content and references; filenames are hints. Report an exact missing prerequisite when no applicable Design Doc can be resolved.
Step 2: Skeleton Generation
Invoke acceptance-test-generator using Agent tool:
subagent_type: "dev-workflows:acceptance-test-generator"description: "Generate test skeletons"design_docs: Existing backend, frontend, or single-layer Design Doc paths from Step 1ui_spec: Existing UI Spec path when presentrequirement_context: Approved PRD path or unchanged Design Doc Requirement Convergence record
Follow subagents-orchestration-guide HC-06 to verify generated paths and coverage of empty lanes before Step 3.
Expected output: generatedFiles containing integration and e2e paths
Step 3: Test Implementation
For each layer with generated skeletons, record the current HEAD as diffBase, then invoke the layer's task-executor:
- Backend or single-layer →
subagent_type: "dev-workflows:task-executor" - Frontend →
subagent_type: "dev-workflows-frontend:task-executor-frontend" description: "Implement integration tests"direct_scope: Implement every test defined by the layer-specific generated skeletonsgoverning_sources: Layer-specific Design Doc, applicable UI Spec, and generated skeleton pathstarget_paths: Generated test paths plus the existing setup or fixture paths explicitly identified before invocationobservable_verification: Execute the implemented tests and verify every skeleton claim at its declared boundary
Execute one layer at a time through Steps 3→4→5→6→7 before starting the next.
Expected output: status, testsAdded, mutationEvidence
Apply this response gate after every task-executor invocation in Steps 3 and 5:
- At least one changed integration/E2E test file and its implementation evidence are confirmed from the response and repository state → Proceed to Step 4
- Required implementation remains incomplete → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance and continue Step 3 while repository evidence supplies an advancing action
- Other result variations → Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Specialist Result Acceptance
Step 4: Test Review
Invoke integration-test-reviewer using Agent tool:
subagent_type: "dev-workflows:integration-test-reviewer"description: "Review test quality"prompt: "Review test quality. changedTestFiles: [confirmed changed integration/E2E test paths]. diffBase: [revision recorded before Step 3]. skeletonFiles: [layer-specific paths from Step 2 generatedFiles]. mutationEvidence: [Step 3 mutationEvidence]."
Expected output: status (pass/needs_revision/blocked), testFiles, reviewBasis, qualityIssues; correction re-review also returns prior_feedback_reconciliation
Step 5: Apply Review Fixes
Check Step 4 result:
status: pass→ Mark complete, proceed to Step 6status: blocked→ Apply Specialist Result Acceptancestatus: needs_revision→ Pass Step 4qualityIssuesunchanged into the Review Resolution Gate; invoke task-executor for rerouted corrections, return to Step 4, and derive convergence fromprior_feedback_reconciliation
Invoke the same layer's task-executor:
description: "Fix review findings"- Reuse Step 3
direct_scope,governing_sources,target_paths, andobservable_verification correction_findings: Complete reviewer finding objects verbatim, with only their orchestrator dispositions added
Step 6: Quality Check
Invoke quality-fixer for the current layer:
- Backend or single-layer →
subagent_type: "dev-workflows:quality-fixer" - Frontend →
subagent_type: "dev-workflows-frontend:quality-fixer-frontend" description: "Final quality assurance"- Copy Step 3
direct_scope,governing_sources, andobservable_verificationinputs unchanged. - Include the latest executor's
correction_findingsinput unchanged when supplied. - Pass the latest executor's
mutationEvidence.
Expected output: status (pass, stub_detected, verification_incomplete, or blocked)
Check quality-fixer response:
stub_detected→ Return to Step 3 with the quality-fixer'sincompleteImplementationsarray unchanged as the canonicalincompleteImplementationsfield, then re-execute Steps 3→4→5→6blocked→ Apply Specialist Result Acceptanceverification_incomplete→ Retain the complete result for one final retry and proceed to Step 7pass→ Proceed to Step 7
Step 7: Commit
On pass or verification_incomplete from quality-fixer:
- Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Commit Boundary Check, then commit test files using Bash with message format: "test: add [layer] integration tests for [feature name]". Append its verification trailers for
verification_incomplete.
After every layer has a clean commit boundary, retry each retained verification limitation once with the same layer quality-fixer inputs. When the retry returns pass, remove that limitation from retained state. Route newly discovered incomplete implementation through Steps 3→6, and retain a repeated limitation for the completion report while continuing the workflow.
In the completion report, list each repeated verification limitation and each declined actionable finding with its ID, governing reason, and evidence when any occurred.
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.

