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.
التثبيت
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
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.
license
MIT
Assertion Diversity Analysis
Analyze .NET test code to measure how varied and meaningful the assertions are. Produce a metrics report that reveals whether tests verify different facets of correctness — not just "output equals X" but also structure, exceptions, state transitions, side effects, and invariants.
Why Assertion Diversity Matters
Low assertion diversity signals shallow testing. Tests may pass while bugs hide in unasserted logic. Common symptoms:
Problem
Symptom
Consequence
Trivial assertions
Assert.IsNotNull(result) only
Test passes but doesn't verify correctness
Single-value obsession
Always check one field or return value
Bugs in unasserted logic slip through
No negative assertions
Never check what shouldn't happen
Regressions sneak in through false positives
No state checks
Don't verify object state changes
Missed side-effects or lifecycle issues
No structural checks
Only assert top-level value
Bugs in nested objects go unnoticed
Assertion-free tests
Tests that call but don't verify
Code coverage lies; false security
When to Use
User asks to evaluate assertion quality or depth
User asks "are my tests actually testing anything meaningful?"
User wants to know if test assertions are too shallow or trivial
User asks for assertion coverage metrics or diversity analysis
User suspects tests give false confidence despite passing
When Not to Use
User wants to write new tests (use writing-mstest-tests)
User wants to detect anti-patterns beyond assertions (use test-anti-patterns)
User wants to fix or rewrite assertions (help them directly)
User asks about code coverage percentages (out of scope — this analyzes assertion quality, not line coverage)
Inputs
Input
Required
Description
Test code
Yes
One or more test files or a test project directory to analyze
Production code
No
The code under test, to evaluate whether assertions cover the important behaviors
Workflow
Step 1: Gather the test code
Read all test files the user provides. If the user points to a directory or project, scan for all test files — see the dotnet-test-frameworks skill for framework-specific markers.
Step 2: Classify every assertion
For each test method, identify all assertions and classify them into these categories:
Assertions on object properties after mutation, verifying mock calls
State transitions and side effects
Structural/Deep
Assertions on nested properties, serialized forms, complex objects
Deep object correctness
A single assertion can belong to multiple categories (e.g., Assert.AreNotEqual is both Equality and Negative).
Step 3: Compute metrics
Calculate these metrics for the test suite:
Per-test metrics
Assertion count: Number of assertions in each test method
Assertion categories: Which categories each test uses
Suite-wide metrics
Average assertions per test: Total assertions / total test methods
Assertion type spread: Number of distinct assertion categories used across the suite (out of 12)
Tests with zero assertions: Count and percentage of test methods with no assertions at all
Tests with only trivial assertions: Count and percentage of tests where every assertion is only a null check or Assert.IsTrue(true) — trivial means no meaningful value verification
Tests with self-referential assertions: Count and percentage of tests whose assertions compare an input to a round-tripped or identity-transformed version of itself (e.g., Assert.AreEqual(input, Parse(input.ToString()))) or assert a field against itself (Assert.AreEqual(dto.Name, dto.Name)). These are tautological — they verify the plumbing, not the behavior.
Tests with negative assertions: Count and percentage (target: at least 10% of tests should verify what should NOT happen)
Tests with exception assertions: Count and percentage
Tests with state/side-effect assertions: Count and percentage
Tests with structural/deep assertions: Count and percentage
Single-category tests: Count and percentage of tests that use only one assertion category
Step 4: Apply calibration rules
Before reporting, calibrate findings:
Trivial means truly trivial.Assert.IsNotNull(result) alone is trivial. But Assert.IsNotNull(result) followed by Assert.AreEqual(expected, result.Value) is not — the null check is a guard before the real assertion. Only flag a test as "trivial" if it has no meaningful value assertions.
Boolean assertions checking meaningful conditions are not trivial.Assert.IsTrue(result.IsValid) checks a specific property — it's a Boolean assertion, not a trivial one. Assert.IsTrue(true) is trivial.
Consider the test's intent. A test for a void method that verifies state change on a dependency is legitimate even if it only uses Assert.IsTrue.
Exception tests are inherently low-assertion-count.Assert.ThrowsException<T>(() => ...) may be the only assertion — that's fine for exception-focused tests. Don't penalize them for low assertion count.
Don't conflate diversity with volume. A test with 20 Assert.AreEqual calls has high volume but low diversity. A test with one equality, one null check, and one exception assertion has low volume but good diversity.
Self-referential assertions are not meaningful equality checks.Assert.AreEqual(input, roundTrip(input)) looks like a real equality assertion but is tautological when the operation under test is expected to be identity. Flag these separately from normal equality assertions. If the test's purpose is to verify a round-trip (serialize/deserialize, encode/decode), the assertion is valid — but it should be accompanied by assertions on non-trivial inputs that exercise the transformation.
If assertions are well-diversified, say so. A report concluding the suite has good diversity is perfectly valid.
Step 5: Report findings
Present the analysis in this structure:
Summary Dashboard — A quick-reference table of key metrics:
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|-------------------------------|--------|------------|
| Total tests | 25 | — |
| Average assertions per test | 2.4 | Moderate |
| Assertion type spread | 5/12 | Low |
| Tests with zero assertions | 3 (12%)| Concerning |
| Tests with only trivial asserts | 4 (16%)| Acceptable |
| Tests with negative assertions | 2 (8%) | Below target |
| Single-category tests | 15 (60%)| High |
Category Breakdown — For each assertion category, show:
How many tests use it
Representative examples from the code
Whether it's overused or underused relative to the code under test
Gap Analysis — Based on the production code (if available), identify:
Behaviors that are tested but only with equality checks
Error paths with no exception assertions
State-changing methods with no state verification
Collections returned but never checked for contents
Recommendations — Prioritized list of improvements:
Which tests would benefit most from additional assertion types
Which assertion categories are missing and why they matter
Concrete examples of assertions that could be added
Assertion-free tests — If any exist, list each one with its method name and what it appears to be testing, so the user can decide whether to add assertions or mark them as intentional smoke tests.
Validation
Every assertion in the test suite was classified into at least one category
Metrics are computed correctly (counts add up)
Trivial-assertion tests are correctly identified (not over-flagged)
Exception tests are not penalized for low assertion count
Boolean assertions on meaningful properties are not classified as trivial
Recommendations are concrete (name specific test methods and suggest specific assertion types)
If the suite has good diversity, the report acknowledges this
Common Pitfalls
Pitfall
Solution
Penalizing exception tests for low assertion count
Exception assertions are complete on their own — skip count warnings for these
Flagging null checks before value checks as trivial
Only flag tests where the null check is the ONLY assertion
Counting Assert.IsTrue(condition) as trivial
Only Assert.IsTrue(true) or always-true conditions are trivial
