| name | integration-test |
| description | Run the TMDb integration tests against the live TMDb API (the Integration test plan; requires TMDB_API_KEY/USERNAME/PASSWORD). Use before a PR, or after model/fixture changes, to validate against real API responses — delegates to the tooling-runner agent (Haiku) and returns counts + failures, distinguishing genuine failures from transient live-API/env issues. For mocked unit tests, use /test. |
Run integration tests
Spawn the tooling-runner agent (Agent tool,
subagent_type: tooling-runner — its Haiku pin, command recipes, and
reporting contract live in .claude/agents/tooling-runner.md) with the
one-line task:
Run the integration-test target: the TMDb live-API integration suite.
Package directory: <your current working directory, absolute>
Always include that directory line. The subagent does not reliably inherit
your working directory, and without it a run inside a git worktree silently
tests the main checkout instead (see .claude/agents/tooling-runner.md).
Use your actual CWD — run pwd if you are not certain of it.
Relay its report — it distinguishes genuine assertion failures from
transient live-API issues (429/timeout/network) and env/precondition
failures. Do not run the tests yourself — unless the report is missing or
malformed (below), which is the only sanctioned fallback.
If the report is unclear on a failure, read the log path it reports
(.build/last-integration-test.log) rather than re-running. After fixing
the issues, re-invoke this skill to re-check. To attribute a failure
(live-API/backend drift vs a regression in your change), use
/diagnose-integration-failure.
A count is not evidence that your new test ran
The log is an aggregate — it names failures only, never the tests that
passed, so passed_tests: 310 looks the same whether a test you just added ran
or never compiled into the bundle. The runner reports Names observed: no for a
full run and is instructed not to claim any passing test by name; treat such a
claim as unfounded, and a rising total as no evidence about an individual test.
This bites hardest here, because a new integration test is usually the only
live proof that a fix works. When it matters, follow up with a scoped run and
read the names:
swift test --skip-build --scratch-path .build --filter 'SuiteName'
Seconds against an already-built bundle, and it distinguishes "the live suite is
green" from "my new test reached the API and passed".
If the report is missing or malformed
Judge the runner's report by shape, not by tone — the three outcomes are
distinguishable and must be handled differently:
| Report | What it means | What you do |
|---|
Status: refused — … | A caller bug (wrong/missing package directory) | Surface it as a hard error and fix the call. Never fall back — the runner is telling you your invocation was unsafe. |
Status: passed/failed | A real result | Relay it; act on any failures |
No report, empty, or missing the Directory:/Status: lines | The subagent died — the run is void, not failed | Re-invoke once. If it voids again, run make -C "<the same absolute directory you passed the runner>" integration-test directly via Bash |
A fallback run is disclosed in your summary — say that you fell back and
why. It is never silently treated as an ordinary result.
