grade-tests

# Grade Tests Assess a curated list of test methods and produce a compact, PR-comment-friendly report. The primary result is one of **Pass**, **Failed**, **Uncertain**, or **Not applicable**; an A-F quality grade remains secondary diagnostic information. The skill **does not discover tests on its own** — the caller (typically a PR automation workflow or a human reviewer holding a specific list) provides the tests or a bounded diff to assess. After Step 0 admits a bounded scope, enforce these grading invariants: - With production context, **load `test-gap-analysis` by name once before scoring**, in `per-test-read-only` caller context. Read its owned composition reference; do not compute mutation evidence from this grading rubric or run its standalone workflow. Report N/A / unverified only when the dependency, reference, or required context is actually unavailable. - Any reported mutation inference must use **Likely killed (inferred)** or **Candidate survivor (unverified)**, even when explained in prose. - Apply only the rubric below, not extra heuristics such as a duplicate-test penalty. Do not use sibling tests to alter the individual assessment. - A **B** quality grade does not require a Failed result; a complete focused test may have no actionable change. > **Language-specific guidance**: If the caller supplies the matching bundled > extension file path, read it directly. Otherwise call `test-analysis-extensions` > to discover available extension files, then read the file matching the > target codebase's language and framework (e.g., `extensions/dotnet.md`, > `extensions/python.md`, `extensions/typescript.md`, `extensions/go.md`). > You MUST read the relevant extension file before scoring assertions or > anti-patterns, because assertion APIs and idiomatic patterns differ > significantly across frameworks. ## Why a Decision Result Plus Quality Detail PR reviewers need a simple answer to *does this test need follow-up?* The four-state result provides that decision; the existing A-F rubric explains its quality and severity. ## When to Use - A PR automation workflow needs to post a decision on the tests introduced or modified in a pull request. - A reviewer has a specific list of tests (a file, a class, a method list, or a diff hunk) and wants per-test follow-up decisions rather than a suite report. - A maintainer wants to triage which of N tests in a contribution deserve follow-up improvements, with quality grades for resolved tests. ## When Not to Use - The caller wants a full suite audit or comparative metrics — use `test-anti-patterns` (pragmatic) or `test-smell-detection` (formal) and let the `test-engineer` agent orchestrate its internal quality specialist. - The caller wants to *write* new tests — use `test-engineer` (any language) or `writing-mstest-tests` (MSTest specifically). - The caller wants to measure code coverage or CRAP scores — use `coverage-analysis` or `crap-score` (.NET only). - The caller wants to fix issues directly in test code — invoke the appropriate editing skill. - No specific list of tests is provided. Do **not** try to grade every test in the workspace; ask the caller for an explicit list or scope. ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | Test methods | Yes | A scope to grade. Provide one of: (a) an explicit list of test method names (fully-qualified, e.g. `Namespace.ClassName.TestMethodName`); (b) one or more file paths plus an explicit instruction to grade every test declared in those files; or (c) a diff hunk / PR identifier whose changed tests should be graded. File paths are recommended but optional when method names are unambiguous in the workspace. Ambiguous requests like *"grade my tests"* with no scope are rejected up-front (see Step 0); this skill is for curated input and does not auto-grade an entire workspace. | | Test bodies / spans | Recommended | The exact source lines for each test method. If omitted, read them from the listed files. | | Production code | No | The code under test, for judging whether assertions cover the claimed behavior. When unavailable, mark the mutation assessment N/A / unverified rather than guessing or deducting. | | Language reference | No | A host-supplied path to the matching bundled `test-analysis-extensions` file. Read it directly instead of invoking its reference-only loader; do not substitute unverified framework guidance. | | Diff context | No | When grading PR changes, the unified diff for each test method helps focus on what actually changed. | ### Step 0: Validate the input Before doing anything else, check that the caller provided one of: 1. An explicit list of test method names, **or** 2. One or more file paths plus an explicit instruction to grade every test declared in those files (e.g., "grade every test in `OrderTests.cs`"), **or** 3. A diff hunk or PR identifier whose changed tests should be graded. If the request is ambiguous (e.g., *"Grade my tests"*, *"Are these tests any good?"* with no scope, *"Review the test suite"*), **do not load extensions, do not read files, and do not grade anything**. Reply with a short message asking the caller to provide an explicit list / file(s) / diff, and optionally point them at the `test-engineer` agent or `test-anti-patterns` skill for full-suite analysis. Stop there. If a valid bounded scope resolves to zero eligible tests, return **Not applicable** with a short explanation and no invented rows. ## Workflow ### Step 1: Detect language and load extension Identify the target codebase's language and test framework from the file extensions and the test method markers in the provided list. Call the `test-analysis-extensions` skill unless the caller already supplied the matching bundled extension file path. In either case, read that extension file (e.g., `extensions/dotnet.md` for MSTest/xUnit/NUnit/TUnit, `extensions/python.md` for pytest, `extensions/typescript.md` for Jest/Vitest, `extensions/go.md` for the standard `testing` package). If the input contains tests from multiple languages, load each relevant extension and grade each test using its language's conventions. ### Step 2: Resolve the test bodies For each entry in the input list: 1. If the test body is provided inline, use it directly. 2. Otherwise read the file at the given path and locate the method by its fully-qualified name. Capture the full method body, including attributes / decorators / fixtures and any helper code that the test calls. 3. If a requested method cannot be found, record it as `Uncertain — method not found` with no quality grade and continue. Never invent a body to grade. A missing requested method requires human review; it is not the same as a valid scope containing no tests. **Composition checkpoint:** for resolved tests with available production context, load `test-gap-analysis` now, once for the batch, with `per-test-read-only` assessment context. Complete its owned reference assessment before Step 3. Do not skip this load just because a body-level weakness already seems obvious; a locally invented mutation explanation is not composition. ### Step 3: Assess the claimed behavior and score each resolved test Keep grading read-only: no build/test runs, mutation execution, file edits, tool installation, broad suite discovery, or agent delegation. Resolve only the supplied tests, their relevant fixtures/helpers, and the production call chain needed for their claims. Use the inline `test-gap-analysis` assessment from Step 2's checkpoint; do not load it a second time. Supply each test's identifier/body, relevant setup/helpers, claimed behavior, assertion semantics, and available source. Its composition dispatch loads the owned read-only reference rather than its standalone baseline/verification workflow. Consume its per-test evidence; do not duplicate its mutation catalog here or invoke an audit/generation agent. Convey mode and inputs as assessment context using the host's supported caller instructions. If the loader accepts only a skill name, load `test-gap-analysis` by name only; do not invent tool arguments or a mode-specific skill name. If the skill/reference or production context is unavailable, record `Pseudo-mutation: N/A / unverified — <reason>` and continue normal body-level grading. This is not a grade deduction or, by itself, an Uncertain result. Do not search installation directories or substitute a mutation runner. Assess only what each test claims: do not borrow another test's assertions, or demand unrelated branches, outputs, or scenarios. An observable survivor can support an existing Assertion strength category when it proves that the test does not verify its claimed outcome; do not introduce mutation points, weights, ceilings, or an automatic survivor penalty. Apply the existing rubric normally, including weaknesses it classifies in both Assertion and Anti-pattern dimensions; do not add another deduction for the same mutation evidence. Start every test at grade **A (score band 90–100)**, then apply deductions strictly for **observable issues** in the captured body. Do **not** deduct for hypothetical concerns (e.g., "could have more negative assertions") unless the production code clearly demands them and the production code is available. When production code is unavailable, grade observable issues in the test body normally, but do not infer missing behaviors or deduct for them. State `Production-dependent behavior coverage: Unverified` once in the summary so the reader can distinguish test-body findings from claims that require source code. #### Three sub-dimensions Compute three sub-grades (each A–F) that together drive the overall grade. ##### A. Assertion strength Read the loaded language extension's assertion API list and classify every assertion in the test body. Score from highest to lowest: | Sub-grade | Pattern | |-----------|---------| | **A** | At least one meaningful value assertion (equality / structural / exception / state) plus, where appropriate, additional checks (negative, type, collection contents). Mock-call verifications (`Verify`, `toHaveBeenCalledWith`, `Should -Invoke`) and bare assertion forms (pytest `assert`, Go `if got != want { t.Errorf(...) }`, Rust `assert!()`) count as real assertions. | | **B** | One clear meaningful assertion that verifies the behavior under test. | | **C** | Only trivial assertions (single `IsNotNull` / `toBeDefined` / `assert x is not None`), or assertions that leave a meaningful part of the test's claimed result unchecked. A focused single-field claim does not require unrelated fields. | | **D** | One self-referential / tautological assertion (`Assert.AreEqual(x, x)`, `assert dto.name == dto.name`, round-trip identity without a non-trivial input), or broad exception assertions (`Assert.ThrowsException<Exception>`). | | **F** | No assertions at all; **all** assertions are always-true literals (`Assert.IsTrue(true)`, `assert True`, `expect(true).toBe(true)`) — these verify nothing and are equivalent to having no assertions; or all assertions are silently un-awaited (e.g., `expect(promise).resolves.toBe(x)` without `await`/`return`, async TUnit/xUnit `Assert.ThrowsAsync` without `await`, pytest-asyncio with un-awaited coroutine). | Exception and error-path tests (`Assert.ThrowsException<T>`, constrained `pytest.raises`, `expect(fn).toThrow`, `assertThrows`, `#[should_panic]`, `Should -Throw`, `EXPECT_THROW`, or Go code that verifies an expected non-nil error) are complete on their own. Give Assertion strength **A** when the test checks the exact promised error condition for its stated scope. Do not deduct for having only that assertion, and do not require an error-message assertion unless the message is part of the documented contract. A Go happy-path test that only checks `err == nil` while discarding a meaningful returned value is still **C** because it does not verify the successful result. ##### B. Structure & focus | Sub-grade | Pattern | |-----------|---------| | **A** | Clear Arrange-Act-Assert (or Given-When-Then) separation. Single behavior under test. Body under ~30 lines. Setup uses framework conventions. | | **B** | One mild structural issue (slightly long body, missing blank lines between phases) but intent is clear. | | **C** | Multiple behaviors mixed in one test, or AAA phases interleaved enough to slow comprehension. | | **D** | Conditional logic in the test (`if`/`switch` driving assertions) — except for idiomatic Go/Rust table-driven sub-test loops; or test relies on previous test state (ordering dependency). | | **F** | Test exceeds ~60 lines and verifies multiple unrelated behaviors; or shares mutable state with other tests through statics/globals without reset. | ##### C. Anti-pattern hygiene Scan against the catalog below. The Anti-pattern sub-grade is computed in two passes and combined deterministically: 1. **Hard ceiling pass.** Every **Critical** or **High** finding sets a maximum sub-grade (F, D, or C as labeled). Take the **worst** ceiling across all matched Critical/High findings — these do not accumulate (a single F finding caps the sub-grade at F regardless of how many other Critical/High findings are present). 2. **Medium-deduction pass.** Start from **A**, then for each **Medium** finding deduct one sub-grade level (A→B, B→C, C→D, D→F). These do accumulate across findings. The final Anti-pattern sub-grade is the **worse** of the two passes (i.e., `min(hard_ceiling, A − medium_count)`). **Low** findings never affect the grade — mention them in the note only. Examples (Critical/High and Medium counts → Anti-pattern sub-grade): - Zero Critical/High, 1 Medium → **B** (A − 1) - Zero Critical/High, 3 Medium → **D** (A − 3) - One C-ceiling (e.g., over-mocking), 0 Medium → **C** - One C-ceiling, 2 Medium → **C** (`min(C, A − 2 = C) = C`; a third Medium tips to **D**) - One F-finding (e.g., swallowed exception) plus any number of Medium → **F** **Critical (drop straight to F or D)** - No assertions at all → F (also drives Assertion sub-grade to F) - Swallowed exceptions: `try { … } catch { }` (.NET), bare `except: pass` (Python), `try { … } catch (e) {}` (JS/TS/Java), `defer recover()` without re-panic (Go), `rescue StandardError` with no assertion (Ruby), empty `catch` (Kotlin/Swift) → F - Assert-in-catch pattern (`Assert.Fail(ex.Message)` instead of `Assert.ThrowsException`) → D - Always-true literal assertions (`Assert.IsTrue(true)`, `assert True`, `expect(true).toBe(true)`) → **F** (verifies nothing; also drives Assertion sub-grade to F) - Self-referential / tautological assertions on bound values (`Assert.AreEqual(x, x)`, `assert dto.name == dto.name`) → D - Commented-out assertions → D **High (drop one or two sub-grades)** - Wall-clock sleep used for synchronization: `Thread.Sleep`, `Task.Delay`, `time.sleep`, `setTimeout`-based wait, `Thread.sleep`, `time.Sleep`, `sleep`, `std::thread::sleep`, `Start-Sleep`, `std::this_thread::sleep_for` (in a unit test) → D - Unseeded randomness, wall-clock reads without abstraction (`DateTime.Now`, `datetime.now()`, `Date.now()`, `System.currentTimeMillis()`, `time.Now()`, `Time.now`, `Instant::now()`, `Get-Date`, `system_clock::now`) → D - Hard-coded environment-dependent paths (`C:\…`, `/tmp/…`, network hosts) → D - Ordering dependency on mutable static / package globals → D - Broad exception assertion (`Assert.ThrowsException<Exception>`, `pytest.raises(Exception)`, `expect(fn).toThrow(Error)` without matcher, `#[should_panic]` without `expected = "…"`, `Should -Throw` without `-ExpectedMessage`, `EXPECT_ANY_THROW`) → C - Over-mocking: more mock setup lines than test logic, or verifying exact call sequences instead of outcomes → C - Implementation coupling: reflection on private members, casting to internal types to access state → C **Medium (drop one sub-grade)** - Poor name: `Test1`, `TestMethod`, `test`, single-word name that says nothing about scenario or expected outcome (judge against the language extension's convention) → drop one sub-grade - Magic values: unexplained `42`, `"foo"`, `0x1234` in arrange/assert without naming or comment → drop one sub-grade - Giant test (>30 lines covering a single behavior) → drop one sub-grade - Assertion messages that just repeat the assertion text → drop one sub-grade - Missing AAA / GWT separation when the test is non-trivial → drop one sub-grade **Low (note only, no deduction)** - Unused setup/teardown hooks; print debugging left in (`Console.WriteLine`, `print`, `console.log`, `System.out.println`, `fmt.Println`, `puts`, `dbg!`, `Write-Host`, `std::cout`); inconsistent naming versus siblings; leftover TODO comments. Mention in the note column but do not deduct. #### Combining sub-grades Convert sub-grades to numeric points: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0. - **Overall score band** = weighted average: `0.45 × Assertion + 0.30 × Anti-pattern + 0.25 × Structure` - Map to letter: - ≥ 3.5 → **A** (band 90–100) - ≥ 2.8 → **B** (band 80–89) - ≥ 2.0 → **C** (band 70–79) - ≥ 1.2 → **D** (band 60–69) - < 1.2 → **F** (band 0–59) - The overall grade is **capped at the worst sub-grade** — if any sub-grade is **F**, the overall grade is **F**; if the worst sub-grade is **D**, the overall grade is at most **D**; and so on. A test that fails on any one dimension cannot earn a higher overall grade than that dimension. Report the **letter grade** and the **score band** (not a single 0–100 number). False precision invites bikeshedding; bands keep the conversation focused on the rubric. ### Step 4: Assign the decision result The grade summarizes strength; the result says whether follow-up exists.