regression-test-design
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate a focused evidence-based regression test matrix from verified requirements, runtime behavior, patches, impact reviews, or proposed designs. Isolate requirement scope, derive provenance-aware test oracles, and avoid combinatorial explosion.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ChloeVPin/open-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 30, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- ChloeVPin/open-agent-skills★ 2same 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 repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adversarial-baseline-auditSkill
- architecture-drift-detectionSkill
- architecture-reconstruction-and-diagramsSkill
- artifact-detailed-designSkill
- baseline-source-of-truth-maintenanceSkill
- claim-verification-and-promotionSkill
- configuration-source-traceSkill
- contract-impact-test-designSkill
- current-state-tdd-synthesisSkill
- design-artifact-decompositionSkill
- design-artifact-decomposition-verificationSkill
- detailed-design-verificationSkill
- full-reverse-engineeringSkill
- implementation-readiness-certificationSkill
- incident-root-cause-analysisSkill
- integration-selection-analysisSkill
- observability-traceability-analysisSkill
- patch-impact-reviewSkill
- persistence-schema-reverse-engineeringSkill
- post-readiness-adversarial-auditSkill
- requirement-compliance-reviewSkill
- resolve-high-impact-unknownsSkill
- resume-reverse-engineeringSkill
- reverse-engineering-bootstrapSkill
- reverse-engineering-coverage-auditSkill
- run-engineering-workflowSkill
- runtime-binding-verificationSkill
- runtime-flow-analysisSkill
- technical-design-proposalSkill
- technical-design-verificationSkill
- wbs-generationSkill
- wbs-verificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
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 10
Use the strongest available evidence:
- Distinctive: line 20
Do not invent expected behavior.
- Distinctive: line 24
When a requirement exists, create:
- Distinctive: line 32
do not transfer conditions between endpoints/surfaces
- Distinctive: line 73
Do not demand an explicit output-layer condition when upstream flow already guarantees the result.
- Distinctive: line 75
If the oracle cannot be proven, use:
- Distinctive: line 93
Avoid blindly multiplying every dimension.
- Distinctive: line 95
Use equivalence classes, boundaries, decision tables, and pairwise/risk-based combinations.
≈ “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
Regression Test Design — 4.0
Evidence Order
Use the strongest available evidence:
- explicit requirement/specification
- current source
- promoted verified baseline
- verified patch-impact/compliance report
- proposed design
- patch/diff as candidate behavior
- existing tests as evidence, not unquestioned truth
Do not invent expected behavior.
1. Canonical Scope
When a requirement exists, create:
| Rule | Surface / Operation | Applies? | Condition | Expected Observable Behavior |
Rules:
- evaluate each row independently
- do not transfer conditions between endpoints/surfaces
- preserve exclusions/non-applicable operations
- unresolved scope remains
SCOPE_UNRESOLVED
2. Derive Tests From
- business rules
- branch conditions
- routing decisions
- target/model/mode combinations
- integrations
- success/failure
- timeout/retry/fallback
- compatibility paths
- input/parameter semantics
- field/data provenance
- audit/observability where behaviorally relevant
For input-driven behavior, distinguish:
- valid supported input
- unsupported input name
- wrong-case input name
- invalid supported value
- invalid supported-input combination
- omitted/null/empty/default
3. Provenance-Aware Test Oracle
For tests involving changed output/data/state, prove:
requirement / verified rule
→ trigger/input condition
→ expected downstream/source data availability
→ expected transform/mapping/state
→ expected serialization/output
→ observable resultConditional output may be achieved indirectly by conditional retrieval. Do not demand an explicit output-layer condition when upstream flow already guarantees the result.
If the oracle cannot be proven, use:
EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR_UNRESOLVED
and identify the missing evidence.
4. Prioritize
Prefer:
- changed externally observable rules
- changed branches
- high-risk shared paths
- boundary conditions
- failure translation
- preserved behavior outside change scope
- performance-sensitive unchanged paths when the patch changes retrieval/call cost
Avoid blindly multiplying every dimension.
Use equivalence classes, boundaries, decision tables, and pairwise/risk-based combinations.
5. Test Matrix
| Test ID | Level | Rule / Flow / Risk | Surface / Operation | Preconditions | Input | Expected Route / Downstream Interaction | Expected Data Provenance / State | Expected Observable Result | Regression Purpose | Evidence | Priority |
Levels:
- UNIT
- COMPONENT
- API_CONTRACT
- INTEGRATION
- END_TO_END
- REGRESSION
An externally visible change must not be covered only by unit tests.
Group scenarios as applicable:
- Positive
- Negative
- Compatibility
- Integration
- Data/State
- Regression
- Concurrency only if the changed path involves it
6. Coverage Gate
Before completion:
[ ] requirement/scope isolation completed when applicable
[ ] expected results have evidence-backed oracles
[ ] changed output/data has provenance-aware expectations
[ ] unchanged behavior outside change scope has regression coverage
[ ] unsupported/wrong-case/invalid-value/invalid-combination inputs are not conflated
[ ] externally visible rules have contract/integration-level coverage where feasible
[ ] high-risk changed branches map to concrete tests
[ ] unresolved oracles are explicitly marked, not guessedOutput
docs/reverse-engineering/tests/<scope>-test-matrix.md
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.

