Menú
Test Protocol
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Generate and curate Claude-oriented bash-policy project rules. Use to run bash-policy export/report, review .bash-policy-candidates.yaml from Claude settings, update .bash-policy.yaml, normalize command-shape identities, or validate bash-policy configuration.
Assess whether an input document is ready for a specific §BRAND_NAME_TITLE§ MAS entry point. Use when a user asks whether a goal, functional spec, detailed spec, technical spec, PRD, story bundle, architecture plan, or other source document is solid enough to run through §BRAND_BINARY_NAME§ with `--entry-point general-objective`, `functional-spec`, `detailed-spec`, or `technical-spec`; when deciding which entry point fits a document; or before `§BRAND_BINARY_NAME§ init --spec`.
Coordinate Pairing-mode doer/reviewer sessions through a Markdown blackboard. Use when the user invokes /adversarial-pairing with role and blackboard-path arguments or asks multiple pairing agents to coordinate plan review, implementation, staged code review, and follow-up review rounds without §BRAND_NAME_TITLE§ multi-agent mode.
Define component boundaries, interfaces, and structural decisions for a change
Summarize artifacts produced by §BRAND_BINARY_NAME§ agents for human checkpoint review
Pre-commit Clean Code refactoring
| name | testing |
| description | Test Protocol |
Tests are the immune system — they reject bugs, not document them.
| Code | Test | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Working | Green | Good |
| Buggy | Red | Good (bug exposed) |
| Working | Red | Wrong expectations |
| Buggy | Green | DANGEROUS |
| Unknown | Red | STOP — use Analysis Framework below |
ANTI-PATTERN: The most dangerous instinct is to "fix" failing tests by accepting whatever source currently does.
Ask for context:
Default heuristic: Tests encode intent; assume the test is correct until evidence suggests otherwise. Source drifts; tests usually don't drift without reason.
Analysis Framework:
FORBIDDEN without approval:
Allowed: Fresh repro tests capturing current failure (existing tests untouched).
Quality Standards:
pytest.raises(ValueError, match="...")Assertion Strength: Would this assertion pass for a broken implementation? If yes (tautology, type-only, existence-only, shape-only), strengthen it.
Mocking Discipline: Test the code, not the scaffolding. Heavy mock setup suggests you're testing assumptions about dependencies, not behavior. Mock external boundaries (APIs, DBs, filesystems), not internal logic.
Paired Coverage: For each positive test, consider a negative counterpart. Happy-path-only is a red flag for complex source.
Coverage Relevance: "Tests pass" ≠ "tests exercise changed code". For non-trivial changes, verify tests cover modified paths.
Signal Hierarchy: Integration failures > Unit failures for architectural changes. Green units with red integration = units work but don't compose.
Structure: Prefer GIVEN / WHEN / THEN blocks for readability. Omit a section when empty; the structure clarifies intent, not ceremony.
Template Principle: Identify one high-quality test file as reference. Match its patterns.
Flaky Tests: Flakiness is a bug, not noise. When encountered: isolate, report, do not retry-until-green. Flakiness masks real failures.