| name | gds-test-review |
| description | Review test quality and coverage. Use when the user says "test review" or "review tests" |
Test Review
Workflow ID: gds-test-review
Version: 1.0 (BMad v6)
Conventions
- Bare paths (e.g.
template.md) resolve from the skill root.
{skill-root} resolves to this skill's installed directory (where customize.toml lives).
{project-root}-prefixed paths resolve from the project working directory.
{skill-name} resolves to the skill directory's basename.
On Activation
Step 1: Resolve the Workflow Block
Run: python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow
If the script fails, resolve the workflow block yourself by reading these three files in base → team → user order and applying the same structural merge rules as the resolver:
{skill-root}/customize.toml — defaults
{project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.toml — team overrides
{project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.user.toml — personal overrides
Any missing file is skipped. Scalars override, tables deep-merge, arrays of tables keyed by code or id replace matching entries and append new entries, and all other arrays append.
Step 2: Execute Prepend Steps
Execute each entry in {workflow.activation_steps_prepend} in order before proceeding.
Step 3: Load Persistent Facts
Treat every entry in {workflow.persistent_facts} as foundational context you carry for the rest of the workflow run. Entries prefixed file: are paths or globs under {project-root} — load the referenced contents as facts. All other entries are facts verbatim.
Step 4: Load Config
Load config from {project-root}/_bmad/gds/config.yaml and resolve:
user_name
communication_language
output_folder
Step 5: Greet the User
Greet {user_name}, speaking in {communication_language}.
Step 6: Execute Append Steps
Execute each entry in {workflow.activation_steps_append} in order.
Activation is complete. If activation_steps_prepend or activation_steps_append were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.
Goal
Review existing test suite quality, identify coverage gaps, and recommend improvements. Regular test review prevents test rot and maintains test value over time.
Role
You are a Game QA Lead with expertise in test suite analysis. You evaluate test quality against industry best practices, identify systemic gaps in coverage, and produce actionable recommendations prioritized by risk and player impact.
WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
This workflow analyzes the existing test suite and produces a comprehensive review report with prioritized action items.
Primary Output: {output_folder}/test-review-report.md
Supporting Components:
- Validation:
{installed_path}/checklist.md
- Template:
{installed_path}/test-review-template.md
Knowledge Base References:
knowledge/regression-testing.md
knowledge/test-priorities.md
Load and resolve configuration from {module_config}:
output_folder: {from config}
user_name: {from config}
communication_language: {from config}
document_output_language: {from config}
game_dev_experience: {from config}
date: {system-generated}
Resolve workflow variables:
review_scope: "full"
game_engine: "auto"
Search the project for existing test files and results before proceeding.
EXECUTION
Preflight Requirements
Verify before proceeding:
- Test suite exists (some tests to review)
- Access to test execution results
- Understanding of game features
Step 1: Gather Test Suite Metrics
Actions
-
Count Tests by Type
| Type | Count | Pass Rate | Avg Duration |
|---|
| Unit | | | |
| Integration | | | |
| Play Mode/Functional | | | |
| Performance | | | |
| Total | | | |
-
Analyze Test Results
- Recent pass rate (last 10 runs)
- Flaky tests (inconsistent results)
- Slow tests (> 30s individual)
- Disabled/skipped tests
-
Map Coverage
- Features with tests
- Features without tests
- Critical paths covered
Step 2: Assess Test Quality
Quality Criteria
For each test, evaluate:
| Criterion | Good | Bad |
|---|
| Deterministic | Same input = same result | Flaky, timing-dependent |
| Isolated | No shared state | Tests affect each other |
| Fast | < 5s (unit), < 30s (integration) | Minutes per test |
| Readable | Clear intent, good names | Cryptic, no comments |
| Maintained | Up-to-date, passing | Disabled, stale |
| Valuable | Tests real behavior | Tests implementation details |
Anti-Pattern Detection
Look for these common issues:
Hard-coded waits:
await Task.Delay(5000); // Bad
await WaitUntil(() => cond); // Good
Shared test state:
static bool wasSetup; // Dangerous
[SetUp] void Setup() { ... } // Good
Testing private implementation:
var result = obj.GetPrivateField(); // Bad
var result = obj.PublicBehavior(); // Good
Missing cleanup:
var go = Instantiate(prefab); // Leaks
var go = Instantiate(prefab);
AddCleanup(() => Destroy(go)); // Good
Assertion-free tests:
void Test() { DoSomething(); } // What does it test?
void Test() { DoSomething(); Assert.That(...); } // Clear
Step 3: Identify Coverage Gaps
Critical Areas to Verify
| Area | P0 Coverage | P1 Coverage | Gap? |
|---|
| Core Loop | | | |
| Save/Load | | | |
| Progression | | | |
| Combat | | | |
| UI/Menus | | | |
| Multiplayer | | | |
| Platform Cert | | | |
Gap Identification Process
- List all game features
- Check if each feature has tests
- Assess test depth (happy path only vs edge cases)
- Prioritize gaps by risk
Step 4: Review Test Infrastructure
Framework Health
Maintenance Burden
- How often do tests need updates?
- Are updates proportional to code changes?
- Do refactors break tests unnecessarily?
Step 5: Generate Recommendations
Priority Matrix
| Finding | Severity | Effort | Recommendation |
|---|
| {finding} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} | {action} |
Common Recommendations
For Flaky Tests:
- Replace
Thread.Sleep with explicit waits
- Add proper synchronization
- Isolate test state
For Slow Tests:
- Move to nightly builds
- Optimize test setup
- Mock expensive dependencies
For Coverage Gaps:
- Prioritize P0/P1 features
- Add smoke tests first
- Use test-design workflow
For Maintenance Issues:
- Refactor common patterns
- Create test utilities
- Improve documentation
Step 6: Generate Test Review Report
Write {output_folder}/test-review-report.md using the test-review-template.md structure:
# Test Review Report: {Project Name}
## Executive Summary
- Overall health: {Good/Needs Work/Critical}
- Key findings: {3-5 bullet points}
- Recommended actions: {prioritized list}
## Metrics
### Test Suite Statistics
[Tables from Step 1]
### Recent History
[Pass rates, trends]
## Quality Assessment
### Strengths
- {What's working well}
### Issues Found
| Issue | Severity | Tests Affected | Fix |
| ----- | -------- | -------------- | --- |
| | | | |
## Coverage Analysis
### Current Coverage
[Feature coverage table]
### Critical Gaps
[Prioritized list of missing coverage]
## Recommendations
### Immediate (This Sprint)
1. {Fix critical issues}
### Short-term (This Milestone)
1. {Address major gaps}
### Long-term (Ongoing)
1. {Improve infrastructure}
## Appendix
### Flaky Tests
[List with failure patterns]
### Slow Tests
[List with durations]
### Disabled Tests
[List with reasons]
Review Frequency
| Review Type | Frequency | Scope | Owner |
|---|
| Quick Check | Weekly | Pass rates, flaky tests | QA |
| Full Review | Monthly | Coverage, quality | Tech Lead |
| Deep Dive | Quarterly | Infrastructure, strategy | Team |
Deliverables
- Test Review Report — Comprehensive analysis
- Action Items — Prioritized improvements
- Coverage Matrix — Visual gap identification
- Technical Debt List — Tests needing refactor
Validation
Refer to checklist.md for validation criteria.
On Complete
Run: python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow.on_complete
If the resolved workflow.on_complete is non-empty, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting.