test-tagging

name	test-tagging
description	Analyzes test suites in any language and tags each test with standardized traits (positive, negative, critical-path, boundary, smoke, regression, integration, performance, security). Use when the user wants to categorize, audit, or label tests with traits. Works across .NET (MSTest/xUnit/NUnit/TUnit), Python (pytest), TS/JS (Jest/Vitest), Java, Go, Ruby, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, PowerShell, and C++ — auto-editing when the framework has canonical tag syntax, otherwise report-only. Do not use for writing new tests, running tests, or migrating frameworks.
license	MIT

Test Trait Tagging

Analyze an existing test suite in any supported language and apply a standardized set of trait tags to each test method, giving teams visibility into their test distribution (positive vs. negative, critical-path coverage, smoke tests, etc.).

Language-specific guidance: Call the test-analysis-extensions skill to discover available extension files, then read the file matching the target codebase. The extension file documents framework-specific tag attributes and a "tag-support capability" (auto-edit, report-only, or convention-based) that drives whether this skill modifies source files or only emits a report.

When to Use

• Auditing a test project to understand the mix of test types
• Adding trait attributes to untagged tests
• Generating a summary report of trait distribution across a test suite
• Reviewing whether critical paths have sufficient coverage

When Not to Use

• Writing new tests from scratch (use code-testing-agent for any language, or writing-mstest-tests for MSTest)
• Running or filtering tests (use run-tests for .NET; equivalent native runners elsewhere)
• Migrating between test frameworks

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
Test project or files	Yes	Path to the test project, folder, or specific test files to analyze
Scope	No	tag (apply attributes when language supports auto-edit), audit (report only), or both (default: both). For languages with no canonical tag syntax, the skill emits a report regardless of scope.
Framework	No	Auto-detected. Override when detection fails.

Trait Taxonomy

Use exactly these trait names and values. Do not invent new trait values outside this table.

Trait Value	Meaning	Heuristics
positive	Verifies expected behavior under normal/valid conditions	Asserts success, valid output, expected state, no exceptions for valid input
negative	Verifies correct handling of invalid input, errors, or edge cases	Asserts exceptions, error codes, validation failures, rejects bad input
boundary	Tests limits, thresholds, empty/null/None/nil inputs, min/max values	Operates on 0, -1, int.MaxValue / sys.maxsize / Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER / math.MaxInt64 / i32::MAX, empty string, null/None/nil/undefined, empty collection, boundary of valid range
critical-path	Core workflow that must never break; breakage blocks users	Tests the primary success scenario of a key public API or user-facing feature
smoke	Quick sanity check that the system is operational	Fast, no complex setup, verifies basic wiring (e.g., service resolves, endpoint returns 200)
regression	Reproduces a specific previously-reported bug	References a bug ID, issue number, or describes a fix in its name or comments
integration	Crosses process, network, or persistence boundaries	Uses real database, HTTP client, file system, external service, or multi-component setup
end-to-end	Full user workflow spanning the entire application stack	Exercises a complete scenario from entry point to final result, distinct from single-boundary integration
performance	Validates timing, throughput, or resource consumption	Asserts on elapsed time, memory, allocations, or uses benchmark harness (BenchmarkDotNet, pytest-benchmark, benchmark.js, JMH, go test -bench, criterion.rs, XCTMetric, kotlinx-benchmark, Google Benchmark)
security	Verifies authentication, authorization, input sanitization, or secrets handling	Tests for SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, unauthorized access, token validation, permission checks

A single test may have multiple traits (e.g., both negative and boundary). At minimum, every test should receive one of positive or negative.

Workflow

Step 1: Detect the language, framework, and tagging capability

Identify the codebase's language and test framework. Call the test-analysis-extensions skill and read the matching extension file. The extension file declares a tag-support capability for each framework:

• auto-edit — framework has canonical tag syntax this skill can safely insert (.NET [TestCategory] / [Trait] / [Category] / [Property], pytest @pytest.mark.<name>, JUnit 5 @Tag("..."), TestNG groups = {"..."}, RSpec metadata it "..." , :tag => true, Pester -Tag '...', Kotest @Tags(...), Swift Testing @Tag(.tagName), Catch2 [tag], doctest * doctest::test_suite("tag") decorator).
• report-only — framework has no canonical, agreed-upon tag attribute; report tags in a Markdown table only and do not edit source (Go standard testing without build-tag conventions, Jest/Vitest without consistent describe-prefix convention, Rust without project-specific cfg conventions, XCTest without a test plan, GoogleTest without test-name prefix conventions, Mocha without describe-prefix conventions).
• convention-based — framework uses naming or file conventions for tagging (Go //go:build integration build tags, file-name suffixes like *_integration_test.go, GoogleTest INTEGRATION_* filter prefix). Only emit canonical edits when the user has confirmed the project convention; otherwise treat as report-only.

Capture the capability before Step 4.

Step 2: Scan existing traits

Check which tests already have trait attributes. Use the loaded language extension as the source of truth — examples:

Framework	Existing Attribute	Example
MSTest	[TestCategory("...")]	[TestCategory("positive")]
xUnit	[Trait("Category", "...")]	[Trait("Category", "positive")]
NUnit	[Category("...")]	[Category("positive")]
TUnit	[Property("Category", "...")]	[Property("Category", "positive")]
JUnit 5	@Tag("...")	@Tag("positive")
TestNG	@Test(groups = {"..."})	@Test(groups = {"positive"})
pytest	@pytest.mark.<name>	@pytest.mark.positive
RSpec	metadata after it	it "...", :positive do
Pester	-Tag '...'	It '...' -Tag 'positive'
Kotest	@Tags(...)	@Tags(Positive)
Swift Testing	@Tag(.<name>)	@Test(.tags(.positive))
Catch2	[tag] in name	TEST_CASE("...", "[positive]")
doctest	* doctest::test_suite("...") decorator	TEST_CASE("..." *doctest::test_suite("positive"))

Record which tests already have tags to avoid duplication.

Step 3: Classify each test method

For each test method without traits, analyze:

1. Method name -- names containing Invalid, Fail, Error, Throw, Reject, BadInput, Null, None, Nil, Negative, raises_, _throws_, _returns_error suggest negative
2. Assertion type -- Assert.ThrowsException / Assert.Throws / Should().Throw() / pytest.raises / expect(fn).toThrow / assertThrows / assert.Error(t, err) / expect { ... }.to raise_error / #[should_panic] / XCTAssertThrowsError / Should -Throw / EXPECT_THROW suggest negative
3. Input values -- null / None / nil / undefined, "", 0, -1, int.MaxValue / sys.maxsize / Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER / math.MaxInt64 / i32::MAX, empty collections suggest boundary
4. Setup complexity -- minimal setup with basic assertions suggests smoke; external dependencies (file/db/net/env) suggest integration
5. Comments and names -- references to issue numbers or "regression" / "bug" / "fix for #..." suggest regression
6. Timing assertions -- Stopwatch, BenchmarkDotNet, elapsed-time checks; pytest-benchmark fixtures; benchmark.js; JMH @Benchmark; go test -bench; criterion.rs; XCTMetric; Google Benchmark; kotlinx-benchmark suggest performance
7. Feature centrality -- tests on primary public API entry points or critical user workflows suggest critical-path

When in doubt between positive and negative, read the assertion: if it asserts success -> positive; if it asserts failure -> negative.

Step 4: Apply trait attributes (or report only)

If the loaded language extension declares auto-edit for the framework, add the appropriate attribute to each test method. Place trait attributes adjacent to the existing test attribute. Examples:

MSTest:

[TestMethod]
[TestCategory("negative")]
[TestCategory("boundary")]
public void Parse_NullInput_ThrowsArgumentNullException() { ... }

xUnit:

[Fact]
[Trait("Category", "positive")]
[Trait("Category", "critical-path")]
public void CreateOrder_ValidItems_ReturnsConfirmation() { ... }

NUnit:

[Test]
[Category("regression")]
[Category("negative")]
public void Calculate_OverflowInput_ReturnsError() // Fix for #1234
{ ... }

pytest:

@pytest.mark.negative
@pytest.mark.boundary
def test_parse_none_input_raises_value_error():
    ...

JUnit 5:

@Test
@Tag("positive")
@Tag("critical-path")
void createOrder_validItems_returnsConfirmation() { ... }

TestNG:

@Test(groups = {"negative", "boundary"})
public void parse_nullInput_throwsIllegalArgumentException() { ... }

RSpec:

it "rejects null input", :negative, :boundary do
  ...
end

Pester:

It 'Rejects null input' -Tag 'negative','boundary' {
    ...
}

Kotest:

@Tags(Negative, Boundary)
class ParserSpec : StringSpec({
    "rejects null input" { ... }
})

Swift Testing:

@Test(.tags(.negative, .boundary))
func parseNullInputThrows() throws { ... }

Catch2:

TEST_CASE("Parse null input throws", "[negative][boundary]") { ... }

If the loaded language extension declares report-only for the framework (Go standard testing, plain Jest/Vitest without convention, Rust without project-specific cfg, plain XCTest, plain GoogleTest, plain Mocha), do NOT modify source files. Instead emit a Markdown table mapping each test to its suggested tags, and recommend a project-wide convention the team can adopt (build tags, file suffix, describe-block prefix, GoogleTest filter prefix, test-plan grouping, etc.).

If the loaded language extension declares convention-based (e.g., Go //go:build integration, *_integration_test.go, GoogleTest INTEGRATION_* prefix), only emit canonical edits when the user has confirmed the project's convention. Otherwise treat as report-only.

Step 5: Generate trait summary

After tagging, produce a summary table:

## Trait Distribution

| Trait         | Count | % of Total |
|---------------|-------|------------|
| positive      |    42 |      53.8% |
| negative      |    22 |      28.2% |
| boundary      |     8 |      10.3% |
| critical-path |    12 |      15.4% |
| smoke         |     3 |       3.8% |
| regression    |     5 |       6.4% |
| integration   |     4 |       5.1% |
| end-to-end    |     2 |       2.6% |
| performance   |     1 |       1.3% |
| security      |     3 |       3.8% |
| concurrency   |     2 |       2.6% |
| resilience    |     1 |       1.3% |
| destructive   |     1 |       1.3% |
| configuration |     2 |       2.6% |
| flaky         |     1 |       1.3% |
| **Total tests** | **78** | -- |

Note: Percentages exceed 100% because tests can have multiple traits.

Include observations such as:

• Ratio of positive to negative tests
• Whether critical-path tests exist for key public APIs
• Any tests that could not be confidently classified (list them for manual review)

Validation

• Every test method has at least one trait classification (positive or negative at minimum) — in the report for report-only frameworks, or as an attribute for auto-edit frameworks
• No invented trait values outside the taxonomy table
• Existing trait attributes were preserved, not duplicated
• The trait summary table was generated
• For auto-edit frameworks, the project still builds / tests still discover after changes (dotnet build / pytest --collect-only / mvn test-compile / go vet ./... / cargo check --tests / npm run test:list / Invoke-Pester -PassThru -Skip / equivalent)
• For report-only frameworks, no source files were modified
• For convention-based frameworks, edits were applied ONLY when a project convention was confirmed

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Solution
Guessing traits without reading the test body	Always read assertions and setup to classify accurately
Tagging a test only as boundary without positive/negative	Every test should also be positive or negative -- boundary is additive
Using the wrong attribute syntax for the detected framework	Match the attribute style to the loaded language extension (don't put [TestCategory] in an xUnit project or @pytest.mark.x in a unittest test)
Duplicating an existing category attribute	Check for pre-existing traits in Step 2 before adding
Over-tagging as critical-path	Reserve for tests on primary public entry points, not every helper
Editing Go / plain Jest / plain Rust / plain XCTest / plain GoogleTest source	These are report-only by default — emit a Markdown table instead. Only edit if the user confirms a project-wide convention (build tag, file suffix, describe-prefix, test-plan grouping).
Inventing tag prefixes for convention-based frameworks	Confirm the project's existing convention before adopting one — don't guess between _integration_test.go, //go:build integration, or IntegrationTest prefix
Missing language-specific concurrency / async primitives	Each language has its own primitives — read the loaded language extension and the Trait Taxonomy concurrency row before classifying as concurrency