can-we-classify-flaky

name

can-we-classify-flaky

description

Analyze test suites for flaky tests using LLM-based classification with context-augmented reasoning. Applies findings from Berndt et al. (2026) showing that test code alone is insufficient — the skill teaches Claude to gather surrounding project context (configs, dependencies, environment, production code) before classifying. Trigger phrases: 'find flaky tests', 'classify flaky tests', 'detect test flakiness', 'why is this test flaky', 'analyze test reliability', 'flaky test triage'

Flaky Test Classification with Context-Augmented LLM Analysis

This skill enables Claude to analyze test code for flakiness — the property where a test yields inconsistent pass/fail results on the same code revision. Based on empirical findings from Berndt et al. (2026), which demonstrated that LLMs performing zero-shot, few-shot, or chain-of-thought classification on isolated test code perform only marginally better than random guessing, this skill implements a context-augmented approach: gathering project artifacts (build configs, production code under test, environment setup, CI configuration) before making a flakiness judgment. The paper's key insight is that flakiness signals live outside the test method itself, so this skill systematically retrieves that missing context.

When to Use

• When a user reports intermittent test failures and asks "is this test flaky?"
• When triaging a test suite to identify tests likely to produce non-deterministic results
• When a user pastes a test method and asks why it might be unreliable
• When reviewing a PR that adds new tests and checking for flakiness risk factors
• When a CI pipeline has inconsistent test results and the user wants to identify root causes
• When migrating or refactoring tests and assessing which ones need hardening against flakiness

Key Technique

Why test code alone fails. Berndt et al. evaluated GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, and CodeLlama across zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting on two established datasets (IDoFT and FlakeFlagger). Even the best prompt-model combination achieved results only marginally above random chance (MCC near zero). A manual investigation of 50 samples confirmed the root cause: isolated test methods lack the contextual signals needed to determine flakiness. A Thread.sleep(1000) in a test might be harmless or catastrophic depending on what it waits for — information that only exists in production code, CI config, or runtime environment.

The six flakiness root-cause categories identified in flaky test literature — and confirmed as undetectable from test code alone — are: (1) async/timing dependencies (waits, sleeps, timeouts whose adequacy depends on external systems), (2) concurrency and shared state (tests that modify shared resources without isolation), (3) test-order dependencies (tests that assume execution order or prior state), (4) external service dependencies (network calls, databases, APIs that may be unavailable), (5) environment sensitivity (file paths, OS-specific behavior, timezone/locale), and (6) randomness and non-determinism (unseeded RNGs, hash iteration order). Detecting most of these requires seeing what the test interacts with, not just the test itself.

The context-augmented approach. Instead of classifying from test code alone (which the paper proves ineffective), this skill implements what the paper recommends as future work: a retrieval-augmented strategy that gathers production code, configuration, and environment details before reasoning about flakiness. This transforms classification from a code-only task into a project-aware analysis.

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Extract the test method(s) under analysis. Read the full test file and isolate each test method, preserving class-level setup/teardown (@Before, @After, setUp, tearDown, beforeEach, etc.) and any shared fields or fixtures.

2. Identify the production code under test. Trace imports and method calls from the test to locate the actual classes/functions being tested. Read those source files to understand what the test exercises — this is the single most important context the paper found missing.

3. Gather build and dependency configuration. Read pom.xml, build.gradle, package.json, requirements.txt, or equivalent. Check for test framework versions, parallelism settings (forkCount, parallel, --workers), and timeout configurations that affect test execution.

4. Check CI/environment configuration. Read .github/workflows/, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, docker-compose.yml, or equivalent. Identify whether tests run in parallel, in containers, with specific environment variables, or against external services.

5. Scan for the six flakiness root-cause categories. For each test, systematically check:

   • Timing: sleep, wait, setTimeout, Thread.sleep, polling loops, @Timeout annotations
   • Concurrency: shared mutable state, static fields, singleton access, missing synchronization
   • Order dependency: reliance on database state, file system artifacts, or class-level mutation without cleanup
   • External services: HTTP clients, database connections, message queues, file I/O to temp directories
   • Environment: hardcoded paths, locale-dependent formatting, OS-specific APIs, port binding
   • Randomness: Math.random(), Random without seed, UUID.randomUUID() in assertions, HashMap iteration

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Timing-dependent test in a Java project

User: "This test fails intermittently in CI. Is it flaky?"

@Test
public void testAsyncNotification() {
    notificationService.sendAsync("[e-mail]", "Hello");
    Thread.sleep(2000);
    List<Notification> sent = notificationRepository.findAll();
    assertEquals(1, sent.size());
}

Approach:

1. Read the test — sees Thread.sleep(2000) and async call pattern
2. Read NotificationService.sendAsync() source — discovers it uses a thread pool with configurable queue size and sends via SMTP
3. Read CI config — finds tests run with -DforkCount=4 (parallel execution) on a shared CI runner
4. Check application-test.properties — finds it points to a real SMTP test server, not a mock

Output:

Classification: LIKELY_FLAKY
Root cause: Async/timing dependency
Confidence: High

Evidence:
- Test code: Thread.sleep(2000) used as a hard wait for async operation
- Production code: NotificationService.sendAsync() submits to thread pool, then
  sends SMTP email — total latency depends on SMTP server response time
- CI config: 4 parallel forks compete for resources, increasing latency variance
- No mock: Test hits a real SMTP server, adding network non-determinism

Recommendation:
Replace Thread.sleep with Awaitility polling:
  await().atMost(10, SECONDS)
         .untilAsserted(() ->
             assertEquals(1, notificationRepository.findAll().size()));
Consider mocking the SMTP transport in unit tests.

Example 2: Shared-state test in a Python project

User: "Some tests pass alone but fail when the full suite runs. Help me find which ones are flaky."

Approach:

1. Scan test files for shared module-level state: global variables, class attributes, singleton patterns
2. Read conftest.py fixtures — check scope (session, module, function) and whether fixtures mutate shared state
3. Read pytest.ini / pyproject.toml — check for --randomly-seed, parallel execution (-n auto), test ordering plugins
4. Identify tests that write to shared resources (database, files, caches) without cleanup

Output:

Found 3 tests with order-dependency risk:

1. test_user_creation (test_auth.py:45)
   Classification: LIKELY_FLAKY (order dependency)
   - Inserts into `users` table using module-scoped db fixture
   - No teardown/rollback — subsequent tests see leftover rows
   - Fix: Use function-scoped fixture with transaction rollback

2. test_cache_expiry (test_cache.py:78)
   Classification: POSSIBLY_FLAKY (shared state)
   - Reads from module-level `_cache = {}` dict populated by test_cache_set
   - If test_cache_set runs first, passes; otherwise, KeyError
   - Fix: Initialize cache in each test or use a fixture

3. test_config_override (test_settings.py:22)
   Classification: LIKELY_FLAKY (environment + order dependency)
   - Monkeypatches os.environ["APP_MODE"] but uses module scope
   - Other tests in same module inherit the patched env
   - Fix: Use function-scoped monkeypatch or `with mock.patch.dict()`

Example 3: Test that looks suspicious but is actually fine

User: "Is this test flaky? It uses random data."

def test_sorting_algorithm():
    random.seed(42)
    data = [random.randint(0, 1000) for _ in range(100)]
    result = my_sort(data)
    assert result == sorted(data)

Approach:

1. Read the test — spots random usage but also random.seed(42) (deterministic)
2. Read my_sort() source — confirms it is a pure function with no side effects
3. Check for parallel test execution config — even with parallelism, the seeded RNG is local

Output:

Classification: UNLIKELY_FLAKY
Root cause: None detected

Evidence:
- Random is seeded with fixed seed (42) — output is deterministic
- my_sort() is a pure function with no external dependencies
- No shared state, no I/O, no timing sensitivity

No action needed. This test is well-constructed.

Best Practices

• Do: Always read the production code under test before classifying. The paper's central finding is that test code alone lacks sufficient signal — the production code is where timing, concurrency, and external dependency details live.
• Do: Check build/CI configuration for parallelism settings. Many flakiness issues only manifest under parallel execution, which is invisible in the test code itself.
• Do: Distinguish between unit tests (which can often be classified from code alone if mocking is visible) and integration tests (which almost always require context about external systems).
• Do: Report confidence levels honestly. If you cannot access production code or CI config, say so and downgrade confidence rather than guessing.
• Avoid: Classifying flakiness from test code alone. The paper empirically proved this approach fails — even GPT-4o with chain-of-thought prompting achieved near-random results.
• Avoid: Assuming every sleep() or random() call indicates flakiness. Context determines whether these patterns are problematic. A seeded random or a sleep that vastly exceeds the operation's maximum latency may be perfectly safe.

Error Handling

• Cannot access production code: If the user only provides the test method, explicitly state that classification confidence is low and request the production code. Cite the paper's finding that test-code-only classification is near random.
• Cannot determine test execution environment: Flag this as a gap. Flakiness often depends on CI parallelism, container resource limits, or network conditions that are not visible in code.
• Ambiguous patterns: When a test has suspicious patterns but also mitigating factors (e.g., sleep with a very generous timeout), classify as POSSIBLY_FLAKY and explain both the risk and the mitigation.
• Large test suites: When asked to scan an entire suite, prioritize integration tests, tests with external dependencies, and tests with known CI failure history. Do not attempt to classify hundreds of tests individually — focus on the highest-risk patterns first.

Limitations

• Test code alone is insufficient. This is the paper's core finding and the fundamental constraint. Without production code, configuration, and environment details, flakiness classification accuracy approaches random chance.
• Some flakiness is undetectable from static analysis. Race conditions, resource contention under load, and infrastructure-level issues (DNS resolution, disk I/O variance) cannot be reliably detected by reading code — they require runtime observation or historical failure data.
• Dataset bias. The IDoFT and FlakeFlagger datasets used in the paper are Java-centric. Flakiness patterns in other ecosystems (Python, JavaScript, Go) may differ in prevalence and manifestation.
• LLM classification is not a substitute for reruns. The most reliable flakiness detection remains running tests multiple times (e.g., pytest --count=10, Maven Surefire rerunFailingTestsCount). LLM-based analysis is a triage tool, not a definitive oracle.

Reference

Berndt, A., Bekmyradov, V., Gemulla, R., Kessel, M., & Bach, T. (2026). Can We Classify Flaky Tests Using Only Test Code? An LLM-Based Empirical Study. arXiv:2602.05465v1. SANER-RENE 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05465v1

Key takeaway: Test-code-only flakiness classification with LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, CodeLlama) across zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting yields results near random chance (MCC ~ 0). The critical missing ingredient is project context — production code, build configuration, CI setup, and runtime environment. Any practical flakiness classifier must retrieve this context before reasoning.