Loading...
Loading...
Found 50 Skills
Unvarnished technical criticism combining Linus Torvalds' precision, Gordon Ramsay's standards, and James Bach's BS-detection. Use when code/tests need harsh reality checks, certification schemes smell fishy, or technical decisions lack rigor. No sugar-coating, just surgical truth about what's broken and why.
Transform passive 'Verify X' test descriptions into active, observable test actions. Use when test ideas lack specificity, use vague language, or fail quality validation. Converts to action-verb format for clearer, more testable descriptions.
Invoke this skill when a user shares test code and questions whether it actually works as intended — not to run or fix the test, but to evaluate whether the test has real value. Triggers on: "is this test any good?", "would this catch a real bug?", "this test always passes — is that normal?", "review these tests before I commit", or "does this test verify anything meaningful?". Also triggers when someone suspects a test is useless, wants a pre-commit quality gate, or is unsure if an auto-generated test is worth keeping. The core question this skill answers: "Would this test fail if the feature broke?" If not, the test gets rejected. Do NOT use for generating new tests, fixing failing tests, or exploring application features.
Compares two test runs to identify new failures, newly flaky tests, fixed tests, and duration regressions. Can be invoked with test run IDs, dashboard URLs, or branch names.
Quick pragmatic review of .NET test code for anti-patterns that undermine reliability and diagnostic value. Use when asked to review tests, find test problems, check test quality, or audit tests for common mistakes. Catches assertion gaps, flakiness indicators, over-mocking, naming issues, and structural problems with actionable fixes. Use for periodic test code reviews and PR feedback. For a deep formal audit based on academic test smell taxonomy, use exp-test-smell-detection instead. Works with MSTest, xUnit, NUnit, and TUnit.
Deep formal test smell audit based on academic research taxonomy (testsmells.org). Detects 19 categorized smell types — conditional logic, mystery guests, sensitive equality, eager tests, and more — with calibrated severity and research-backed remediation. Use for comprehensive test suite health assessments. For a quick pragmatic review, use test-anti-patterns instead. DO NOT USE FOR: writing new tests (use writing-mstest-tests), evaluating assertion quality specifically (use assertion-quality), or finding test duplication and boilerplate (use exp-test-maintainability).
Analyzes the variety and depth of assertions across .NET test suites. Use when the user asks to evaluate assertion quality, find shallow testing, identify assertion-free tests (no assertions or only trivial ones like Assert.IsNotNull), flag self-referential or tautological assertions (output equals input on identity/round-trip operations), measure assertion coverage diversity, or audit whether tests verify different facets of correctness. Produces metrics and actionable recommendations. Works with MSTest, xUnit, NUnit, TUnit. DO NOT USE FOR: writing new tests (use writing-mstest-tests), other anti-patterns like flakiness or duplication (use test-anti-patterns), or fixing assertions.
Validate test effectiveness with mutation testing using Stryker (TypeScript/JavaScript) and mutmut (Python). Find weak tests that pass despite code mutations. Use to improve test quality.
Test Isolation + Anti-Patterns audit worker (L3). Checks isolation (APIs/DB/FS/Time/Random/Network), determinism (flaky, order-dependent), and 6 anti-patterns.
Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests", "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review", or "playwright best practices check".
Evaluate the output of a journey-builder run, identify instruction gaps, and edit the project root AGENTS.md (or add pitfalls to the gist) to fix those gaps. Does NOT modify the journey-builder skill itself.
Test coverage analysis, identify gaps, and generate missing tests to achieve over 80% coverage. Trigger conditions: user requests for test coverage analysis, test coverage improvement, and test writing.