agentleFS
xcrrrxcrrr/claude-skills/skills/coding/test-writer/SKILL.md

test-writer

Skill6 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use this skill when writing unit tests, integration tests, or end-to-end tests for existing or new code. Trigger phrases: 'write tests for', 'add test coverage', 'how do I test this', 'TDD this feature'. Not for running or debugging test infrastructure or CI pipelines.

28 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use debug-fix, changelog-writer and 8 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • zebbernSkill

    debug-fix

    Find and fix a bug or issue — from any source (GitHub issue, error message, user report, or observed behavior)

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • zbruhnkeSkill

    changelog-writer

    Maintain CHANGELOG.md with properly categorized entries. Use after implementing features, fixing bugs, or making any notable changes. Follows Keep a Changelog format.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • glinckerSkill

    readme-generator

    Generates comprehensive README.md files for software projects by analyzing codebase structure

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • get-proofpilotSkill

    context-budget

    Audits Claude Code context window consumption across agents, skills, MCP servers, and rules. Identifies bloat, redundant components, and produces prioritized token-savings recommendations.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • nimbalystSkill

    prd-writer

    Create structured Product Requirements Documents (PRDs) with prioritized requirements. Use when writing product specs, feature requirements, or project briefs.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GitHubSkill

    refactor

    Surgical code refactoring to improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers extracting functions, renaming variables, breaking down god functions, improving type safety, eliminating code smells, and applying design patterns. Less drastic than repo-rebuilder; use for gradual improvements.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 27 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 14

    Distinctive

    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. Distinctive:

    Unit test: test a function in isolation with all dependencies mocked.

    line 51
  2. Distinctive:

    Integration test: test multiple real components together (e.g., service + real DB).

    line 52
  3. Distinctive:

    E2E test: test a full user-facing workflow through the actual UI or API.

    line 53
  4. Very specific:

    Test file: co-locate with source or mirror directory structure: utils.test.ts, utils.spec.py

    line 71
  5. Distinctive:

    Do NOT mock the thing you're testing.

    line 75
  6. Distinctive:

    Do NOT mock value objects or pure functions — use real instances.

    line 76
  7. Distinctive:

    Prefer dependency injection over module-level patching for testability.

    line 77
  8. Distinctive:

    Verify side effects: was the correct database method called with the correct args?

    line 81
  9. Distinctive:

    Avoid asserting on internal implementation details that could change without breaking behavior.

    line 83
  10. Distinctive:

    Run coverage report; target 80%+ line coverage on business logic.

    line 86
  11. Distinctive:

    Write tests before code (TDD) to drive better API design

    line 247
  12. Distinctive:

    Keep tests fast — slow tests don't get run.

    line 250
  13. Distinctive:

    Use test factories or builders for complex object setup to avoid repetition

    line 251
  14. Distinctive:

    Test the contract (what), not the implementation (how) — brittle tests couple to internals

    line 252
  15. Distinctive:

    Not testing error paths and edge cases — happy-path-only tests miss most bugs

    line 256
  16. Very specific:

    Use test.each (Jest) or @pytest.mark.parametrize for table-driven tests with multiple input/output pairs

    line 263
  17. Very specific:

    Use faker or factory-boy to generate realistic test data instead of hand-crafting fixtures

    line 266

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 27 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Test Writer

Overview

The Test Writer skill produces comprehensive, maintainable tests following established practices: the test pyramid (unit → integration → e2e), the AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert) pattern, meaningful naming conventions, and effective mocking strategies. It helps determine what to test, how to structure test files, what to mock vs. not mock, and how to set coverage targets. Good tests serve as executable documentation that catches regressions before they reach production.

When to Use

  • Writing tests for a new function, class, or module
  • Adding tests to untested legacy code before refactoring
  • Following Test-Driven Development (TDD) — writing tests before implementation
  • Evaluating test coverage and identifying what's missing
  • Writing integration tests for API endpoints or database interactions

When NOT to Use

  • Setting up CI/CD pipelines or test runners (infrastructure concern)
  • Load testing or performance benchmarking (different tooling)
  • Writing end-to-end browser automation scripts (use a Playwright/Cypress skill)
  • Debugging a failing test (use the debugger skill to find the root cause)

Quick Reference

LevelScopeSpeedMock?Target %
UnitSingle function/classFast (<1ms)Dependencies70–80% of tests
IntegrationMultiple modules + real DB/APIMedium (10–100ms)External services only15–25% of tests
E2EFull user journey through UISlow (1–30s)Nothing5–10% of tests
ConceptDescription
AAAArrange (set up) → Act (call) → Assert (verify)
Namingdescribe('unit') / it('should behavior when condition')
MockingReplace dependencies with controlled test doubles
Coverage target80% line coverage; 100% on critical paths
TDD cycleRed → Green → Refactor

Instructions

  1. Identify the unit under test
    • Pick a single function, method, or class as the subject.
    • List all inputs, outputs, side effects, and error conditions.
    • Identify dependencies that need to be mocked (databases, HTTP clients, file system, clocks).
  2. Choose the right test level
    • Unit test: test a function in isolation with all dependencies mocked.
    • Integration test: test multiple real components together (e.g., service + real DB).
    • E2E test: test a full user-facing workflow through the actual UI or API.
  3. Identify test cases
    • Happy path: the function works correctly with valid input.
    • Edge cases: empty string, empty array, zero, null, very large numbers, boundary values.
    • Error cases: invalid input, dependency throws, timeout.
    • State variations: first-time user vs. returning user; empty list vs. full list.
  4. Apply the AAA pattern to each test
    // Arrange — set up test data and mocks
    // Act — call the function under test
    // Assert — verify the output or side effects
  5. Apply naming conventions
    • Describe block: name of the unit under test — describe('calculateDiscount')
    • It block: "should [expected behavior] when [condition]" — it('should return 0 when cart is empty')
    • Test file: co-locate with source or mirror directory structure: utils.test.ts, utils.spec.py
  6. Mock strategically
    • Mock I/O boundaries: databases, HTTP calls, file system, time, random.
    • Do NOT mock the thing you're testing.
    • Do NOT mock value objects or pure functions — use real instances.
    • Prefer dependency injection over module-level patching for testability.
  7. Assert precisely
    • Assert on the exact expected value, not just that "something was called."
    • Verify side effects: was the correct database method called with the correct args?
    • For error cases: assert the exact error type and message.
    • Avoid asserting on internal implementation details that could change without breaking behavior.
  8. Check coverage
    • Run coverage report; target 80%+ line coverage on business logic.
    • 100% coverage on security-critical paths (auth, payment, data validation).
    • Untested branches show up as risk — prioritize covering error paths.

Examples

Example 1: Write unit tests for a utility function (JavaScript/Jest)

Input: A calculateDiscount function to test:

// discount.js
export function calculateDiscount(price, userTier) {
  if (price <= 0) throw new Error('Price must be positive');
  const rates = { silver: 0.05, gold: 0.10, platinum: 0.20 };
  const rate = rates[userTier] ?? 0;
  return Math.round(price * rate * 100) / 100;
}

Output:

// discount.test.js
import { calculateDiscount } from './discount';

describe('calculateDiscount', () => {
  describe('happy path', () => {
    it('should apply 5% discount for silver tier', () => {
      // Arrange
      const price = 100;
      const tier = 'silver';

      // Act
      const result = calculateDiscount(price, tier);

      // Assert
      expect(result).toBe(5.00);
    });

    it('should apply 10% discount for gold tier', () => {
      expect(calculateDiscount(100, 'gold')).toBe(10.00);
    });

    it('should apply 20% discount for platinum tier', () => {
      expect(calculateDiscount(100, 'platinum')).toBe(20.00);
    });

    it('should return 0 discount for unknown tier', () => {
      expect(calculateDiscount(100, 'bronze')).toBe(0);
    });

    it('should return 0 discount when tier is undefined', () => {
      expect(calculateDiscount(100, undefined)).toBe(0);
    });

    it('should round to 2 decimal places', () => {
      // $99.99 * 5% = 4.9995 → rounds to 5.00
      expect(calculateDiscount(99.99, 'silver')).toBe(5.00);
    });
  });

  describe('error cases', () => {
    it('should throw when price is zero', () => {
      expect(() => calculateDiscount(0, 'gold')).toThrow('Price must be positive');
    });

    it('should throw when price is negative', () => {
      expect(() => calculateDiscount(-50, 'gold')).toThrow('Price must be positive');
    });
  });

  describe('edge cases', () => {
    it('should handle very small positive price', () => {
      expect(calculateDiscount(0.01, 'platinum')).toBe(0.00);
    });

    it('should handle very large price', () => {
      expect(calculateDiscount(1_000_000, 'platinum')).toBe(200_000);
    });
  });
});

Example 2: Write an integration test for an API endpoint (Node.js/Jest + Supertest)

Input: An Express endpoint to test:

// routes/users.js
router.post('/users', async (req, res) => {
  const { email, name } = req.body;
  if (!email) return res.status(422).json({ error: 'email is required' });
  const existing = await db.users.findByEmail(email);
  if (existing) return res.status(409).json({ error: 'email already in use' });
  const user = await db.users.create({ email, name });
  return res.status(201).json(user);
});

Output:

// routes/users.integration.test.js
import request from 'supertest';
import { app } from '../app';
import { db } from '../db';

// Use a real test database — no mocking of db layer
beforeAll(async () => { await db.migrate.latest(); });
afterAll(async () => { await db.destroy(); });
afterEach(async () => { await db.raw('DELETE FROM users'); }); // clean state

describe('POST /users', () => {
  describe('successful creation', () => {
    it('should create a user and return 201 with user data', async () => {
      // Arrange
      const payload = { email: 'alice@example.com', name: 'Alice' };

      // Act
      const res = await request(app).post('/users').send(payload);

      // Assert
      expect(res.status).toBe(201);
      expect(res.body).toMatchObject({
        id: expect.any(String),
        email: 'alice@example.com',
        name: 'Alice',
        createdAt: expect.any(String),
      });
      // Verify persisted to DB
      const saved = await db.users.findByEmail('alice@example.com');
      expect(saved).not.toBeNull();
    });
  });

  describe('validation errors', () => {
    it('should return 422 when email is missing', async () => {
      const res = await request(app).post('/users').send({ name: 'Bob' });
      expect(res.status).toBe(422);
      expect(res.body.error).toBe('email is required');
    });
  });

  describe('conflict errors', () => {
    it('should return 409 when email already exists', async () => {
      // Arrange — seed an existing user
      await db.users.create({ email: 'carol@example.com', name: 'Carol' });

      // Act
      const res = await request(app)
        .post('/users')
        .send({ email: 'carol@example.com', name: 'Carol 2' });

      // Assert
      expect(res.status).toBe(409);
      expect(res.body.error).toBe('email already in use');
    });
  });
});

Best Practices

  • Write tests before code (TDD) to drive better API design
  • One logical assertion concept per test — multiple expect() calls are fine if they verify the same behavior
  • Tests should be deterministic: no random data, no time-dependent behavior (mock Date.now())
  • Keep tests fast — slow tests don't get run; unit tests should complete in milliseconds
  • Use test factories or builders for complex object setup to avoid repetition
  • Test the contract (what), not the implementation (how) — brittle tests couple to internals

Common Mistakes

  • Testing implementation details (private methods, internal state) instead of observable behavior
  • Not testing error paths and edge cases — happy-path-only tests miss most bugs
  • Over-mocking: mocking so much that tests pass even when real integrations are broken
  • Using production database in tests without cleanup — tests pollute each other
  • Testing framework code (e.g., testing that Express routing works) instead of your business logic
  • Ignoring flaky tests — a flaky test is worse than no test (false confidence)

Tips & Tricks

  • Use test.each (Jest) or @pytest.mark.parametrize for table-driven tests with multiple input/output pairs
  • Snapshot tests for complex output structures, but review snapshots on every change
  • --coverage --collectCoverageFrom to see which lines are untested
  • Use faker or factory-boy to generate realistic test data instead of hand-crafting fixtures
  • Jest's jest.useFakeTimers() / Python's freezegun to control time-dependent tests

Related Skills

  • debugger
  • code-reviewer
  • api-designer
  • refactorer

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.