plan-test-strategy

name	plan-test-strategy
description	Produce a test strategy for a feature, component, or story. Identifies the highest-impact tests by type and layer, flags brittleness risks, and recommends what NOT to test. Use for test planning, coverage gap analysis, or when deciding how to test a new feature.
user-invokable	true
context	fork
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
argument-hint	[feature, component, story, or area to analyze]

Test Strategy

Produce a focused test strategy that maximizes reliability gain per unit of maintenance cost. The output recommends specific test types at specific layers with explicit rationale for each — and equally important, what to skip.

Input

$ARGUMENTS = description of the feature, component, story, or area to develop a test strategy for.

Process

1. Handle Missing Input

If $ARGUMENTS is empty or contains no actionable description, prompt the user for the minimum information needed:

• What feature, component, or area needs a test strategy? — Name the feature or describe the scope.

Do not proceed until the user has provided a description of what to plan testing for.

2. Gather Context

• Read the project's CLAUDE.md for architecture, conventions, and domain language
• Scan the codebase for existing test patterns:
  • Glob for test files (**/*test*, **/*spec*, **/__tests__/**)
  • Identify test frameworks in use (package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt, etc.)
  • Note existing test organization (co-located vs. separate test directories)
• Read the code under test to understand:
  • Component boundaries and interfaces
  • External dependencies (APIs, databases, file systems, third-party services)
  • Pure logic vs. integration points vs. UI surfaces
  • Error paths and edge cases
• If a story or AC set is provided, extract the testable behaviors from acceptance criteria

3. Risk Assessment

Classify the feature/component along these dimensions:

Dimension	Low Risk	High Risk
Blast radius	Affects one user flow	Affects many flows or all users
Change frequency	Stable, rarely modified	Hotspot, frequently changed
Failure cost	Cosmetic or easily noticed	Data loss, security, or silent corruption
Complexity	Linear logic, few branches	Many branches, state machines, concurrency
External coupling	Pure logic, no I/O	Multiple external dependencies

Use the risk profile to calibrate test investment — high-risk areas justify more tests at more layers; low-risk areas may need only a single layer.

4. Test Type Selection

For each testable behavior, recommend the lowest effective layer:

Test Type	Best For	Avoid When
Unit tests	Pure logic, calculations, transformations, validators, parsers	Testing glue code, configuration, or trivial delegation
Integration tests	Database queries, API client behavior, service boundaries, contract verification	The integration point is stable and well-abstracted
Contract tests	API boundaries between services, schema evolution	Internal module boundaries (use unit tests instead)
Component tests	Isolated service behavior with stubbed dependencies	The component has trivial logic
End-to-end tests	Critical user journeys, smoke tests, deployment verification	Exhaustive coverage of edge cases (use lower layers)
Property-based tests	Functions with wide input domains, serialization round-trips, invariants	Simple CRUD operations with well-defined inputs
Snapshot tests	Detecting unintended output changes in serialized formats	Rapidly evolving outputs (causes constant snapshot churn)

Selection heuristic: Ask "what is the simplest test that would catch a regression here?" Start there. Move up a layer only when the lower layer cannot exercise the behavior.

5. Brittleness Analysis

For each recommended test, evaluate brittleness risk:

High brittleness signals (flag and mitigate):

• Testing implementation details rather than behavior (e.g., asserting method call counts, internal state, private method behavior)
• Excessive mocking — more than 2-3 mocks in a single test suggests the unit boundary is wrong
• Time-dependent assertions without clock control
• Order-dependent tests (test B only passes if test A runs first)
• Tight coupling to UI structure (CSS selectors, DOM hierarchy, exact text matching)
• Snapshot tests on volatile outputs (dates, IDs, non-deterministic ordering)
• Tests that assert exact error messages rather than error categories
• Asserting against auto-generated code or third-party library internals

Mitigation strategies:

• Test behavior through public interfaces, not internal implementation
• Replace mocks with fakes or test doubles that implement real interfaces
• Use clock injection for time-dependent logic
• Test error categories (type, code) rather than exact messages
• Use data-testid attributes or semantic selectors instead of CSS paths
• Pin only the stable subset of snapshots

6. Coverage Gap Identification

Cross-reference the risk assessment with existing tests:

• High risk + no tests = critical gap (must address)
• High risk + low-layer tests only = consider adding integration or e2e coverage
• Low risk + extensive tests = potential over-testing (flag for review)
• Error paths untested = common gap (especially for external dependency failures)

If /analyze-code-churn data is available for the area, use churn hotspots to identify files that change frequently but lack proportional test coverage — these are reliability risks.

7. Anti-Test List

Explicitly list what should NOT be tested and why:

• Trivial getters/setters — zero logic, zero risk
• Framework behavior — the framework is already tested
• Configuration wiring — test the behavior the config enables, not the config itself
• Third-party library internals — test your integration, not their code
• One-off scripts or migrations — test the outcome, not the script
• Exact log messages — log content is documentation, not a contract

Output

Test Strategy: [Feature/Component Name]

Risk Profile:

Dimension	Rating	Rationale
Blast radius	[Low/Medium/High]	[one sentence]
Change frequency	[Low/Medium/High]	[one sentence]
Failure cost	[Low/Medium/High]	[one sentence]
Complexity	[Low/Medium/High]	[one sentence]
External coupling	[Low/Medium/High]	[one sentence]

Overall test investment: [Light / Moderate / Thorough] based on risk profile.

Recommended Tests:

For each recommended test:

Test: [descriptive name of what is being verified]
Type: [unit | integration | contract | component | e2e | property-based | snapshot]
Layer: [what code/boundary this exercises]
Rationale: [why this test type at this layer — what regression does it catch?]
Brittleness risk: [low | medium | high] — [mitigation if medium/high]
Priority: [critical | important | nice-to-have]

Group tests by priority. Lead with critical tests.

Do Not Test:

Bulleted list of behaviors or areas explicitly excluded from testing, each with a one-sentence rationale.

Coverage Gaps:

Any high-risk areas that currently lack adequate testing, with recommended remediation.

Existing Test Observations:

If the area already has tests, note:

• Tests that are well-placed and should be preserved
• Tests that may be over-specified or brittle (candidates for refactoring)
• Test patterns in the codebase that should be followed for consistency