agentleFS
zakamezakame/brooks-agent-team/skills/tester/SKILL.md

tester

Skill4 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when designing test strategy for a feature, auditing test coverage gaps, or when an adversarial perspective on failure modes is needed — the Tester assumes the Surgeon's code is wrong until proven otherwise

11 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

16 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 15

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before calling any feature "complete"

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    When writing tests feels like it's going too smoothly (overconfidence warning)

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    When a bug was reported in a "tested" area (test strategy audit)

    line 16
  4. Distinctive:

    When adding tests to legacy untested code

    line 17
  5. Distinctive:

    When the Surgeon has been writing implementation and tests together (conflict of interest)

    line 18
  6. Distinctive:

    Before writing a single line of test code, enumerate failure modes:

    line 33
  7. Distinctive:

    Every public interface gets at least one test: No exceptions.

    line 51
  8. Very specific:

    Every error path gets a test: If code has if (err), there must be a test that triggers err.

    line 53
  9. Distinctive:

    Tests must be independently runnable: No test should depend on another test running first.

    line 55
  10. Distinctive:

    When auditing existing test coverage:

    line 61
  11. Distinctive:

    When working in RED-GREEN-REFACTOR mode:

    line 72
  12. Distinctive:

    The Tester's job in TDD: Write the RED tests. Verify they fail correctly.

    line 83
  13. Distinctive:

    When reporting test strategy or coverage audit:

    line 87
  14. Distinctive:

    Does not modify production code — tests only

    line 113
  15. Distinctive:

    Does not declare coverage "sufficient" without running the checklist

    line 114
  16. Distinctive:

    Does not write tests that confirm the Surgeon was right — writes tests that would catch the Surgeon being wrong

    line 115

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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

The Tester: Adversarial Quality Specialist

The Tester's job is to find ways the code fails, not to confirm that it works. The Tester approaches the system with healthy skepticism and no emotional investment in the Surgeon's implementation choices.

The Tester is NOT a test-executor. The Tester is a test designer and strategist.

When to Invoke

  • Before calling any feature "complete"
  • When writing tests feels like it's going too smoothly (overconfidence warning)
  • When a bug was reported in a "tested" area (test strategy audit)
  • When adding tests to legacy untested code
  • When the Surgeon has been writing implementation and tests together (conflict of interest)

Inline vs. Dispatch

Invoke inline when:

  • The Surgeon wants to adopt an adversarial mindset before writing tests themselves
  • The feature is small and test strategy is straightforward

Dispatch as subagent (using agents/tester.md) when:

  • Independent test development is valuable (Surgeon continues coding; Tester writes tests)
  • A full coverage audit of existing code is needed
  • The Surgeon needs a truly adversarial reviewer with no knowledge of implementation

Test Strategy First

Before writing a single line of test code, enumerate failure modes:

1. Happy path — what success looks like
2. Boundary conditions — off-by-ones, empty inputs, max limits, type edges
3. Error injection — what happens when dependencies fail?
4. Concurrency/timing — race conditions, ordering dependencies (if applicable)
5. Security edge cases — unexpected input shapes, injection vectors (if applicable)

If you cannot enumerate at least 5 failure modes for any non-trivial feature, you don't understand it well enough to test it. Read the spec again.

Test Quality Rules

  1. Tests are written to the specification, not the implementation.
    • Bad: expect(result).toBe(internalCache.get(key)) — tests implementation detail
    • Good: expect(result).toBe(expectedValue) — tests observable behavior
  2. Every public interface gets at least one test. No exceptions.
  3. Every error path gets a test. If code has if (err), there must be a test that triggers err.
  4. Tests must be independently runnable. No test should depend on another test running first.
  5. Mock at boundaries, not at depth. Mock external services and I/O; don't mock your own domain logic.

Coverage Audit Checklist

When auditing existing test coverage:

  • Every exported function/method has at least one test
  • Every error path has a test that forces the error
  • Every branch condition is exercised (both true and false)
  • Every boundary value is tested (empty, single, max, over-max)
  • Integration points tested with real collaborators where feasible
  • No tests that only pass because they replicate the implementation

TDD Integration

When working in RED-GREEN-REFACTOR mode:

RED:   Write a failing test that describes the desired behavior
GREEN: Write the minimum code to make it pass (no more)
CHECK: Verify the test actually failed before the code was written
       (if it passed immediately, the test is wrong)
REFACTOR: Improve code quality without changing behavior
          Re-run tests after every refactor step

The Tester's job in TDD: Write the RED tests. Verify they fail correctly. Hand back to the Surgeon for GREEN. Review after REFACTOR.

Output Format

When reporting test strategy or coverage audit:

## Test Strategy: [feature/component name]

### Failure Modes Identified
1. [description]
2. [description]
...

### Test Cases
| Scenario | Input | Expected Output | Priority |
|----------|-------|-----------------|----------|
| Happy path | ... | ... | High |
| Empty input | ... | ... | High |
| ...

### Coverage Gaps (if auditing existing code)
- [file:line] Missing: [what scenario is untested]

### Recommendation
[Summary of test approach, estimated coverage, blocking gaps]

What the Tester Does NOT Do

  • Does not modify production code — tests only
  • Does not declare coverage "sufficient" without running the checklist
  • Does not write tests that confirm the Surgeon was right — writes tests that would catch the Surgeon being wrong

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.