agentleFS
tuisttuist/agent-plugin/skills/compare-test-case/SKILL.md

compare-test-case

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Compares a single test case's behavior across two branches, analyzing pass/fail status, duration, flakiness, and failure details. Useful for investigating test regressions introduced by a feature branch.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 0 new projectsWeek of Nov 1: 0 new projects
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 3 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.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Run tuist test case show <id-or-identifier> --json to get the test case metrics.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Run tuist test case run list <identifier> --json to see runs across branches.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    If no base branch is provided, use the project's default branch (usually main).

    line 64
  4. Distinctive:

    If no head branch is provided, detect the current git branch.

    line 65
  5. Distinctive:

    Newly flaky: No flaky runs on base, flaky runs on head

    line 78
  6. Distinctive:

    Check commits between base and head branches for changes to the test file or the code under test.

    line 104
  7. Distinctive:

    Look at the failure message for clues about what changed.

    line 105
  8. Very specific:

    Check if repetitions show intermittent pass/fail patterns.

    line 109
  9. Distinctive:

    Check if setup/teardown time increased.

    line 113
  10. Distinctive:

    Check if the test is doing more work (new assertions, larger data sets).

    line 114
  11. Distinctive:

    Check if a dependency became slower.

    line 115

≈ “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

Compare Test Case

Quick Start

You'll typically receive a test case identifier and two branches. Follow these steps:

  1. Run tuist test case show <id-or-identifier> --json to get the test case metrics.
  2. Run tuist test case run list <identifier> --json to see runs across branches.
  3. Compare behavior between base and head branches.
  4. Inspect failures with tuist test case run show <run-id> --json.
  5. Summarize findings with root cause analysis.

Step 1: Resolve the Test Case

By ID or dashboard URL

tuist test case show <test-case-id> --json

By identifier (Module/Suite/TestCase)

tuist test case show Module/Suite/TestCase --json

If no test case is provided

Discover flaky or failing tests to investigate:

tuist test case list --flaky --json --page-size 10

Key fields from the response:

  • id -- unique identifier for subsequent commands
  • name, module_name, suite_name -- the test identity
  • reliability_rate -- percentage of successful runs
  • flakiness_rate -- percentage of flaky runs in the last 30 days
  • total_runs / failed_runs -- volume context
  • is_flaky / is_quarantined -- current flags

Step 2: Get Runs on Each Branch

List test case runs filtered by the test case, and look at the git_branch field:

tuist test case run list <identifier> --json --page-size 20

Separate runs by branch. For each branch, compute:

  • Pass rate: passed_runs / total_runs * 100
  • Average duration
  • Flaky run count
  • Most recent status

Defaults

  • If no base branch is provided, use the project's default branch (usually main).
  • If no head branch is provided, detect the current git branch.

Step 3: Compare Branch Behavior

MetricBase branchHead branchVerdict
Pass ratee.g. 100%e.g. 60%REGRESSION
Avg duratione.g. 0.5se.g. 2.1sREGRESSION
Flaky runs03NEW FLAKINESS
Last statussuccessfailureREGRESSION

Classify the change:

  • Newly failing: 100% pass rate on base, <100% on head
  • Newly flaky: No flaky runs on base, flaky runs on head
  • Duration regression: >50% increase in average duration
  • Fixed: Failing on base, passing on head
  • Stable: Same behavior on both branches

Step 4: Inspect Failures

For each failing run on the head branch:

tuist test case run show <test-case-run-id> --json

Examine:

  • failures[].message -- the assertion or error message
  • failures[].path -- source file path
  • failures[].line_number -- exact line of failure
  • failures[].issue_type -- type of issue
  • repetitions -- shows retry behavior (e.g., pass-fail-pass means flaky)
  • crash_report -- crash data if the test runner crashed

Step 5: Identify Root Cause

Based on the comparison:

Newly failing

  • Check commits between base and head branches for changes to the test file or the code under test.
  • Look at the failure message for clues about what changed.

Newly flaky

  • Common patterns: timing/async issues, shared state, environment dependencies.
  • Check if repetitions show intermittent pass/fail patterns.
  • See the fix-flaky-tests skill for detailed flaky test analysis patterns.

Duration regression

  • Check if setup/teardown time increased.
  • Check if the test is doing more work (new assertions, larger data sets).
  • Check if a dependency became slower.

Summary Format

Produce a summary with:

  1. Test case info: Name, module, suite, overall reliability.
  2. Base branch behavior: Pass rate, avg duration, flaky count.
  3. Head branch behavior: Pass rate, avg duration, flaky count.
  4. Verdict: What changed and classification.
  5. Root cause: Hypothesis based on failure analysis.
  6. Recommendations: Specific file paths, line numbers, and fix suggestions.

Example:

Test Case Comparison: AuthModuleTests/LoginTests/test_login_with_expired_token

Overall reliability: 85% (was 100% before head branch)

Base (main):
  Pass rate: 100% (15/15 runs)
  Avg duration: 0.3s
  Flaky: No

Head (feature/auth-refactor):
  Pass rate: 60% (3/5 runs)
  Avg duration: 0.5s
  Flaky: Yes (2 flaky runs)

Verdict: NEWLY FLAKY -- test was stable on main but intermittently fails on feature branch

Root cause: The auth refactor introduced an async token refresh that races with the
test's synchronous assertion. Failures show "Expected status 401, got nil" at
Tests/AuthModuleTests/LoginTests.swift:42, suggesting the response arrives before
the token refresh completes.

Recommendations:
- Add an await/expectation before the assertion at LoginTests.swift:42
- Consider mocking the token refresh to make the test deterministic

Done Checklist

  • Resolved the test case identity
  • Gathered runs on both branches
  • Compared pass rates, durations, and flakiness
  • Inspected failure details for failing runs
  • Identified root cause with file paths and line numbers
  • Provided actionable fix recommendations

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.