agentleFS
tuisttuist/agent-skills/skills/fix-flaky-tests/SKILL.md

fix-flaky-tests

Skill35 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Fixes flaky tests by analyzing failure patterns from Tuist test insights, identifying root causes, and applying targeted corrections. Can be invoked with a specific test case URL (e.g. `https://tuist.dev/{account}/{project}/tests/test-cases/{id}`) or without arguments to discover and fix all flaky tests in the project.

3 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

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

21 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 8 are 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.

  • 8

    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 reliability metrics for the test.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Run tuist test case run list Module/Suite/TestCase --flaky --json to see flaky run patterns.

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    Run tuist test case run show <test-case-run-id> --json on failing flaky runs to get failure messages and file paths.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    Read the test source at the reported path and line, identify the flaky pattern, and fix it.

    line 15
  5. Distinctive:

    Verify by running the test multiple times to confirm it passes consistently.

    line 16
  6. Distinctive:

    If no specific test is provided, start with the Discovery section below.

    line 18
  7. Distinctive:

    When no specific test case is provided, find all flaky tests in the project:

    line 22
  8. Very specific:

    Check if failures share a test_run_id — tests that all failed in the same run may have been killed by a process crash, not individual test …

    line 35
  9. Distinctive:

    Look at failure messages to categorize: test logic bugs vs infrastructure issues (network errors, server 502s, conflicts on retry).

    line 36
  10. Distinctive:

    Read the full test function and its setup/teardown.

    line 92
  11. Distinctive:

    Check if the test shares state with other tests in the same suite.

    line 94
  12. Very specific:

    Missing waits: Test checks a result before an async operation completes.

    line 99
  13. Distinctive:

    Implicit ordering: Test passes only when run after another test that sets up required state.

    line 114
  14. Distinctive:

    After identifying the pattern:

    line 124
  15. Distinctive:

    Do not refactor unrelated code.

    line 127
  16. Distinctive:

    If the fix requires a test utility (like a mock or helper), check if one already exists before creating a new one.

    line 128
  17. Very specific:

    Run the specific test repeatedly until failure using xcodebuild's built-in repetition support:

    line 134
  18. Distinctive:

    Before applying a fix, try to reproduce the flaky failure locally.

    line 144
  19. Very specific:

    Increase parallelism: Add -parallel-testing-enabled YES to run test suites concurrently.

    line 152
  20. Very specific:

    Run broader test suites: Instead of running a single test, run the entire module (e.g.

    line 153
  21. Distinctive:

    Thread Sanitizer: Run with TSan enabled to detect data races deterministically.

    line 154

≈ “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

Fix Flaky Tests

Quick Start

You'll typically receive a Tuist test case URL or identifier. Follow these steps to investigate and fix it:

  1. Run tuist test case show <id-or-identifier> --json to get reliability metrics for the test.
  2. Run tuist test case run list Module/Suite/TestCase --flaky --json to see flaky run patterns.
  3. Run tuist test case run show <test-case-run-id> --json on failing flaky runs to get failure messages and file paths.
  4. Read the test source at the reported path and line, identify the flaky pattern, and fix it.
  5. Verify by running the test multiple times to confirm it passes consistently.

If no specific test is provided, start with the Discovery section below.

Discovery

When no specific test case is provided, find all flaky tests in the project:

tuist test case list --flaky --json --page-size 50

This returns all test cases currently flagged as flaky. Key fields:

  • module.name / suite.name / name — the test identifier
  • avg_duration — helps prioritize (fix fast unit tests first)
  • is_quarantined — whether the test is already quarantined

Triage strategy:

  1. Group tests by suite — multiple flaky tests in the same suite often share a root cause.
  2. Check if failures share a test_run_id — tests that all failed in the same run may have been killed by a process crash, not individual test bugs.
  3. Look at failure messages to categorize: test logic bugs vs infrastructure issues (network errors, server 502s, conflicts on retry).

Investigation

1. Get test case metrics

You can pass either the UUID or the Module/Suite/TestCase identifier:

tuist test case show <id> --json
tuist test case show Module/Suite/TestCase --json

Key fields:

  • reliability_rate — percentage of successful runs (higher is better)
  • flakiness_rate — percentage of runs marked flaky in the last 30 days
  • total_runs / failed_runs — volume context
  • last_status — current state

2. View flaky run history

tuist test case run list Module/Suite/TestCase --flaky --json

The identifier uses the format ModuleName/SuiteName/TestCaseName or ModuleName/TestCaseName when there is no suite. This returns only runs that were detected as flaky.

3. View full run history

tuist test case run list Module/Suite/TestCase --json --page-size 20

Look for patterns:

  • Does it fail on specific branches?
  • Does it fail only on CI (is_ci: true) or also locally?
  • Are failures clustered around specific commits?

4. Get failure details

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

Key fields:

  • 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 (assertion_failure, etc.)
  • repetitions — if present, shows retry behavior (pass/fail sequence)
  • test_run_id — the broader test run this execution belongs to
  • crash_report — crash report data (present when the test runner crashed); contains exception_type, signal, exception_subtype, and triggered_thread_frames

Code Analysis

  1. Open the file at failures[0].path and go to failures[0].line_number.
  2. Read the full test function and its setup/teardown.
  3. Identify which of the common flaky patterns below applies.
  4. Check if the test shares state with other tests in the same suite.

Common Flaky Patterns

Timing and async issues

  • Missing waits: Test checks a result before an async operation completes. Fix: use await, expectations with timeouts, or polling.
  • Race conditions: Multiple concurrent operations access shared state. Fix: synchronize access or use serial queues.
  • Hardcoded timeouts: sleep(1) or fixed delays that are too short on CI. Fix: use condition-based waits instead of fixed delays.

Shared state

  • Test pollution: One test modifies global/static state that another test depends on. Fix: reset state in setUp/tearDown or use unique instances per test.
  • Singleton contamination: Shared singletons carry state between tests. Fix: inject dependencies or reset singletons.
  • File system leftovers: Tests leave files that affect subsequent runs. Fix: use temporary directories and clean up.

Environment dependencies

  • Network calls: Tests hit real services that may be slow or unavailable. Fix: mock network calls.
  • Date/time sensitivity: Tests depend on current time or timezone. Fix: inject a clock or freeze time.
  • File system paths: Hardcoded paths that differ between environments. Fix: use relative paths or temp directories.

Order dependence

  • Implicit ordering: Test passes only when run after another test that sets up required state. Fix: make each test self-contained.
  • Parallel execution conflicts: Tests that work in isolation but fail when run concurrently. Fix: use unique resources per test.

Crashes (identified via crash_report)

  • EXC_BREAKPOINT / SIGTRAP — force-unwrap of nil, Swift precondition failure
  • EXC_BAD_ACCESS / SIGSEGV — use-after-free or dangling pointer
  • EXC_CRASH / SIGABRT — uncaught Objective-C exception

Fix Implementation

After identifying the pattern:

  1. Apply the smallest fix that addresses the root cause.
  2. Do not refactor unrelated code.
  3. If the fix requires a test utility (like a mock or helper), check if one already exists before creating a new one.

Verification

Running tests repeatedly

Run the specific test repeatedly until failure using xcodebuild's built-in repetition support:

xcodebuild test -workspace <workspace> -scheme <scheme> -only-testing <module>/<suite>/<test> -test-iterations <count> -run-tests-until-failure

This runs the test up to <count> times and stops at the first failure. Choose the iteration count based on how long the test takes — for fast unit tests use 50–100, for slower integration or acceptance tests use 2–5.

Reproducing before fixing

Before applying a fix, try to reproduce the flaky failure locally. A successful reproduction confirms your root cause analysis and lets you verify the fix directly. Use the "Running tests repeatedly" approach above, or the race condition strategies below if concurrency is suspected.

Some flaky scenarios — especially race conditions, CI-specific timing issues, or environment-dependent failures — may be difficult or impossible to reproduce locally. If you cannot reproduce after reasonable effort, proceed with fixing based on code analysis and failure logs. A fix backed by clear evidence of a bug (e.g. unsynchronized shared state, TOCTOU pattern) is valid even without local reproduction.

Reproducing race conditions

Race conditions and concurrency bugs often only manifest under CI-level parallelism and are hard to reproduce locally. Try these strategies in order:

  1. Increase parallelism: Add -parallel-testing-enabled YES to run test suites concurrently.
  2. Run broader test suites: Instead of running a single test, run the entire module (e.g. -only-testing ModuleTests) to increase contention on shared resources.
  3. Thread Sanitizer: Run with TSan enabled to detect data races deterministically. Note: TSan adds overhead which can change timing, so some races may not trigger under TSan.
xcodebuild test -workspace <workspace> -scheme <scheme> -only-testing <module> -enableThreadSanitizer YES
  1. High iteration count with broad scope: Combine all the above — run the full module with parallelism and many iterations.

If a race condition cannot be reproduced locally but the code is provably thread-unsafe (e.g. unsynchronized mutation of shared state), the fix is still valid. Verify the fix by confirming the tests pass with the same reproduction strategies above. Document in the commit message that the fix addresses a CI-only race condition identified through code analysis and failure logs.

Done Checklist

  • Identified the root cause of flakiness
  • Applied a targeted fix
  • Verified the test passes consistently (multiple runs)
  • Did not introduce new test dependencies or shared state
  • Committed the fix with a descriptive message

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.