‹ 首页

test-quality

@techygarg · 收录于 1 周前

Apply test quality principles when generating or reviewing test code. Enforces Arrange-Act-Assert structure, one behavior per test, assertion quality, test isolation, meaningful naming, and test data management. Use when writing tests, reviewing test code, or when the user mentions 'write tests', 'test this', 'test quality', 'test review', 'improve tests', or 'test structure'. This skill governs the craft of writing individual test cases -- not what to test (that is driven by the code being implemented) but how to write tests that are reliable, readable, and maintainable.

适合你,如果你在写或审查测试代码,希望提升测试质量

/ 下载安装
test-quality.skill双击,或拖进 Claude 桌面版 / Cowork,即完成安装↓ .skill↓ .zip
用别的 agent?下载 .zip 解压,把文件夹放进它的技能目录
Claude Code~/.claude/skills/(项目级 .claude/skills/)
Codex CLI~/.codex/skills/
Cursor自动读取上面两处目录
其他工具见其文档的「skills」目录;两个下载是同一份文件,只是名字不同
/ 通过 npx 安装 校验哈希
npx oh-my-skill add techygarg/lattice/test-quality
/ 通过 bash 安装
curl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- techygarg/lattice/test-quality
/ 已经装过?验证本机副本,不用重装
npx oh-my-skill verify techygarg/lattice/test-quality
安装目标可用 --agent / --scope 或 --to 明确指定;省略时只会在唯一已存在的 agent 目录上自动选择,零命中或多命中会停止并提示。content_hash 缺失或不一致均拒装。
159GitHub stars
待重算上下文体积
镜像托管

怎么用

技能原文 SKILL.md作者撰写 · MIT · e5a5a73

Test Quality

Config Resolution

Skill support project custom. Order:

  1. Look .lattice/config.yaml in repo root
  2. If find, check paths.test_quality for custom doc path
  3. If custom path exist, read doc & check YAML frontmatter for mode:
  4. mode: override (or no mode): Custom doc take full control. Use instead default. Must be complete -- is only reference.
  5. mode: overlay: Read ./references/defaults.md first, then apply custom doc on top. Custom sections replace match sections (by heading). New sections add after.
  6. If no config/path/file, read ./references/defaults.md
  7. Language adaptation: If paths.language_idioms exist in config, read "Testing Patterns" section and adapt §5 (Test Naming), §4 (Test Isolation), §6 (Test Data Builders) to language test framework idioms. Language idioms take precedence over pseudocode defaults.
Self-Validation Checklist

STOP after gen each test. Check ALL before continue. If fail, fix. If ambiguous (see Ambiguity Signals), flag -- show options & reasoning.

  1. AAA STRUCTURE: arrange, act, assert separate w/ blank lines? Any logic (if/loop/try) in arrange or assert?
  2. SINGLE BEHAVIOR: Test verify one behavior per loaded doc (default: one behavior per test, name need "and" = split)?
  3. ASSERTION QUALITY: Assert observable behavior, not implementation? Specific enough catch regression?
  4. ISOLATION: Test depend other test output/effects? All mutable state per-test?
  5. TEST NAME: Name follow team convention per loaded doc (default: describe behavior, not method)? Failure message clear?
  6. TEST DATA: Complex arrange uses builders/factories? Magic values → named constants? (Inline literals fine for trivial tests.)
  7. MOCK BOUNDARIES: Mock per loaded doc (default: only at arch boundaries — I/O, external — not internal collab)?
  8. TEST CODE AS FIRST-CLASS: Structured like production code? Shared constants at top, helpers extracted, no dead code, clear file organization?

Project-specific checks: if loaded doc contains a validation checklist section, apply those after base checklist.

Active Anti-Pattern Scan

After checklist, scan these. If find, fix before present.

  • [ ] Test-per-Method: One test per method regardless behaviors → One test per scenario, named for behavior
  • [ ] Assertion Roulette: Multiple unrelated asserts; unclear which broke → Split to one behavior per test
  • [ ] Shared Mutable State: Pass alone, fail together → Isolate state; per-test setup; no static mutable
  • [ ] Testing Implementation Details: Break on refactor w/ same behavior; mock call counts → Assert observable behavior, not method calls
  • [ ] Mystery Guest: Depend external file/db/env var not visible → Inline data or use builders; all preconditions visible
  • [ ] Slow Tests by Default: Unit suite take minutes; hit db/network/fs → Mock/fake I/O; use in-memory
  • [ ] Conditional Test Logic: Test have if/loop/try -- test need own tests → Remove logic; use parameterized; let asserts fail natural
  • [ ] Copy-Paste Tests: Near-identical w/ small changes → Extract shared setup to builders; use parameterized
Class-Level Review

Fire when: (1) completing all tests for a class — new or existing. (2) adding or editing any test in an existing class.

STOP before present. Per-test checks verify individual quality. This review verifies the test suite covers the class contract.

Full review (new class or significant additions)
  1. Behavior inventory — list every public method/behavior in class under test. If class not available, ask user to enumerate.
  2. Coverage matrix — map each test → behavior it covers. Behaviors with zero tests → blocking. Do not present until user addresses gap or explicitly accepts it.
  3. Error path check — scan class under test for: explicit throws, conditional error branches, edge guards. For each found: does a test exercise this path? If not → flag by name. Zero-coverage error paths are blocking unless user explicitly accepts.
  4. Behavioral duplication — compare "then" clauses across all tests. Same observable outcome regardless of structural differences → flag as likely duplication. Name both tests.
  5. Balance signal — any behavior with tests but none covering a failure or edge case → surface as question, not hard failure: "deleteUser has 1 test (happy path only) — does it have error cases?"
Edit-scoped review (adding or changing one test in existing class)

Run steps 3–5 only, scoped to the changed test:

  • Does this test duplicate the observable outcome of any existing test?
  • Does it cover a behavior or error path not previously covered?
Ambiguity Signals

Multiple valid outcomes. Present options, not choose silent.

  • Unit vs Integration: Service coordinate components -- test isolate (mock) or real collab? Depend coupling & what verify.
  • Mock Depth: Mock direct depend or let call through? Over-mock test implementation; under-mock create slow/flaky.
  • Test Granularity: One test multi asserts vs multi tests one assert? When asserts verify facets same behavior, group ok.
Test Code as First-Class Code

Treat test files like production classes:

  • Shared constants and boundary values at top of file (named, not magic)
  • Shared builders/factories extracted to helpers -- not copy-pasted per test
  • Setup methods or fixtures for repeated arrange patterns
  • Logical grouping: related behaviors together (by feature, by scenario type)
  • Dead tests removed, not commented out
  • Refactoring applies: extract method when arrange is long, rename when intent unclear, move shared setup when duplicated

Refactoring opportunities to surface proactively:

  • Multiple tests repeat same arrange → extract to builder or shared fixture
  • Same assertion pattern across tests → extract custom assertion helper
  • Test file grows beyond ~300 lines → split by behavior group
  • Constants scattered inline → collect at top with descriptive names
  • Deeply nested test structures → flatten with clear naming

See ./references/defaults.md for AAA structure examples, assertion patterns, isolation techniques, naming conventions, test data builder patterns, and pyramid distribution guidance.

按 MIT 许可原样转载,未经改动 · 在 GitHub 查看 →

评论

登录即可评论;带「已验证安装」的,是发布者名下有本店的安装或持有记录。