detox
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Hunt down and fix flaky tests. Use when a test suite fails intermittently, CI needs re-runs to go green, or the user wants to know which tests are flaky versus genuinely broken — and why.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- anithomas/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- G1Joshi/Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- G1Joshi/Agent-Skills★ 15same name
- anithomas/claude-skills★ 0same 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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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 16
Run the full suite repeatedly — default 5 runs, more if runs are cheap — and build a per-test pass/fail matrix.
- Distinctive: line 34
Read the failing assertion under each hypothesis: a flake almost always belongs to one of six families — shared state, ordering, …
≈ “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
Detox
A flaky test is worse than a missing test: it trains everyone to ignore red. Your job is to separate flaky from broken, diagnose each flake's root cause class, and fix the cause — never the symptom.
Banned fixes
Retry wrappers, longer sleeps, and skip are not fixes; they are how flakes become permanent residents. The only acceptable retry is around a call to a genuinely external system the test cannot control — and that usually means the test should be mocking it instead.
Phase 1 — Census
Run the full suite repeatedly — default 5 runs, more if runs are cheap — and build a per-test pass/fail matrix.
- Fails every run → broken, not flaky. Report separately; out of scope unless asked.
- Fails some runs → flaky. This is the target list, ranked by failure rate.
- Record conditions per run: ordering, parallelism, seed, timing — the variance between a passing and failing run often names the culprit by itself.
Phase 2 — Diagnose each flake
Isolate, then classify. Standard experiments:
| Experiment | If behavior changes → |
| Run the test alone vs. after the full suite | Shared state / test-order dependence |
| Run the suite in random order / different parallelism | Order dependence, resource contention (ports, files, DB rows) |
| Run with a fixed seed / frozen clock | Unseeded randomness, time-of-day or timezone dependence |
| Run repeatedly in a tight loop | Race conditions, timing assumptions, hardcoded timeouts |
| Run with network blocked / observed | Real network calls hiding in a "unit" test |
Read the failing assertion under each hypothesis: a flake almost always belongs to one of six families — shared state, ordering, timing/races, unseeded randomness, clock/timezone, external systems (network, filesystem, ports).
Phase 3 — Fix the cause
Match the fix to the family: proper setup/teardown isolation for shared state; explicit awaiting or synchronization points instead of sleeps for races; injected/frozen clocks; seeded randomness; mocks or test doubles for external systems; per-test unique resources (temp dirs, ephemeral ports) for contention. The fix should make the test deterministic, not tolerant.
Phase 4 — Prove it
A fix isn't proven by one green run. Run the fixed test 20+ times, including under the conditions that made it fail (full-suite ordering, parallelism, tight loop). Then run the whole suite to confirm the fix didn't shift the flake elsewhere.
Phase 5 — Report
Write FLAKES.md: per test — failure rate before, root-cause family, the experiment that proved it, the fix, runs-passed after. Plus a short "flake debt" section: patterns in the codebase likely to breed the same families again (a shared fixture, a real HTTP client in unit tests), so the next flake gets prevented rather than hunted.
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.