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
- programmerraja/claude-code-toolboxtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- KhristenkoE/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 12, 2026
- webiny/webiny-jstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- NirDiamant/Agentic_Engineeringtheir own version, first seen Sep 21, 2026
- gustavo-em/orchestrator-featurestheir own version, first seen Sep 7, 2026
- Victorcorcos/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- webiny/webiny-js★ 8ksame name
- NirDiamant/Agentic_Engineering★ 34same name
- Victorcorcos/skills★ 7same name
- Cogni-AI-OU/cogni-ai-agent-skills★ 4same name
- erikfiala/e2e-tester★ 2same name
- KJ-devs/setupClaudeCode★ 2same name
- aiperceivable/apcore-skills★ 1same name
- gustavo-em/orchestrator-features★ 1same name
- programmerraja/claude-code-toolbox★ 1same name
- dmitryi698/opsx-role-spec★ 0same name
1 more not listed
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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- administratorSkill
- assemble-teamSkill
- assemble-with-fleetSkill
- assemble-with-grok-teamSkill
- assemble-with-hermes-teamSkill
- assemble-with-pi-teamSkill
- copilotSkill
- editorSkill
- language-lawyerSkill
- program-clerkSkill
- surgeonSkill
- toolsmithSkill
- using-brooks-teamSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 14
Before calling any feature "complete"
- Distinctive: line 15
When writing tests feels like it's going too smoothly (overconfidence warning)
- Distinctive: line 16
When a bug was reported in a "tested" area (test strategy audit)
- Distinctive: line 17
When adding tests to legacy untested code
- Distinctive: line 18
When the Surgeon has been writing implementation and tests together (conflict of interest)
- Distinctive: line 33
Before writing a single line of test code, enumerate failure modes:
- Distinctive: line 51
Every public interface gets at least one test: No exceptions.
- Very specific: line 53
Every error path gets a test: If code has if (err), there must be a test that triggers err.
- Distinctive: line 55
Tests must be independently runnable: No test should depend on another test running first.
- Distinctive: line 61
When auditing existing test coverage:
- Distinctive: line 72
When working in RED-GREEN-REFACTOR mode:
- Distinctive: line 83
The Tester's job in TDD: Write the RED tests. Verify they fail correctly.
- Distinctive: line 87
When reporting test strategy or coverage audit:
- Distinctive: line 113
Does not modify production code — tests only
- Distinctive: line 114
Does not declare coverage "sufficient" without running the checklist
- Distinctive: line 115
Does not write tests that confirm the Surgeon was right — writes tests that would catch the Surgeon being wrong
“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.
Files
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
- 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
- Bad:
- Every public interface gets at least one test. No exceptions.
- Every error path gets a test. If code has
if (err), there must be a test that triggerserr. - Tests must be independently runnable. No test should depend on another test running first.
- 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 stepThe 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
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.

