| name | testing-strategy |
| description | Test coverage audit via the Beyonce Rule (uncovered behavior is behavior you've agreed to change silently), DAMP over DRY (tests read like specs, not production code), and the Prove-It pattern (every behavioral claim needs a falsifying test). Use when reviewing a PR for test gaps or when a feature lands without coverage. |
| kind | skill |
| supported_hosts | ["claude-code","antigravity"] |
| version | 0.1.1 |
| install_scope | project |
testing-strategy
Test coverage audit and strategy review. The goal is to find behavior that is claimed but not proven — specifically, the behavior you care about that has no test that would fail if it broke.
When to Invoke
- When reviewing a PR where the diff includes behavior changes but no test changes.
- When a feature lands and the test suite "looks fine" but no one has audited coverage explicitly.
- After the adversarial-reviewer surfaces a defect that wasn't caught by an existing test.
- When the test suite is growing but feels like it's testing implementation rather than behavior.
Key Principles
Beyonce Rule
If you liked it, then you should have put a test on it.
Any behavior you care about must have a test that would fail if that behavior changed. Uncovered behavior is not "untested" — it is behavior you've agreed to change silently. The absence of a test is an explicit statement: "I don't care if this breaks."
Apply the Beyonce Rule by asking: "if this behavior were accidentally deleted tomorrow, would a test catch it?" If the answer is no, the behavior is uncovered.
DAMP over DRY
Tests should be Descriptive And Meaningful in Phrasing. A test is not production code — it is a specification. The reader should be able to understand what behavior is being verified without reading the implementation.
DAMP explicitly permits duplication in tests when that duplication improves readability. A test that sets up its own data and makes its own assertions is easier to debug than a test that delegates to helpers that delegate to helpers. The failure of a DAMP test is self-contained; the failure of an over-DRY test requires tracing the call chain.
Signals of anti-DAMP:
- Test names are
testFoo_case1, testFoo_case2 (no behavior description).
- Setup is hidden in fixtures that a reader must look up to understand what the test starts with.
- Assertions are generic (
assert result is not None) rather than behavioral (assert result.status == "shipped").
Prove-It Pattern
Every claim about behavior must be backed by a test that would fail if the claim were false.
If a commit message says "handles the empty-list case," there must be a test that passes an empty list and asserts the correct behavior. If there isn't, the claim is unverified. "Handles" is a confidence claim; the test is the proof.
Bug-fix regression tests specifically: prove the test, not just the fix
A regression test that accompanies a bug fix is a Prove-It claim like any other, with one extra failure mode: the test can pass against the fix while never having been capable of failing against the bug. This happens when the test reproduces a simplified stand-in for the real failure instead of the real failure's own shape — the stand-in and the real bug can diverge on exactly the condition that made the bug a bug (a specific nesting depth, a specific flag combination, a specific character adjacency), so the test proves nothing about the actual claim.
Confirmed case (agentm PR #316, corrected in #317): a fix for a shell-locale bug shipped with a regression test using a bare, top-level variable (label="x"; echo "$label…"). The real bug only reproduced with a local variable inside a function, under set -u — the actual shape of the failing script. The simplified test passed against both the real fix and a wrong fix (an env value that didn't actually resolve the bug), because it was never capable of exercising the condition the wrong fix failed to handle. The gap surfaced only when someone ran the actual command by hand.
The check this pattern requires, beyond "does a test exist": revert the fix (or check out the pre-fix commit) and confirm the regression test actually fails, using the real failure's own reproduction shape — not an approximation of it. A regression test that only ever passes was never proven to test anything.
Process
Step 1 — List the behavioral claims
From the diff and the PR description, list every behavioral claim: "handles X", "returns Y when Z", "ignores N", "raises on invalid input", etc. Include implicit claims — a function named validateInput implies it validates; that validation behavior needs coverage.
Step 2 — Match claims to tests (Beyonce Rule audit)
For each behavioral claim: is there a test that would fail if this behavior changed? Yes / No. A test that calls the function but doesn't assert the specific behavior doesn't count — it must be a falsifying test.
Step 3 — Assess test quality (DAMP check)
For each existing test that covers a behavioral claim: does the test read like a specification? Can the failure message be understood without reading the implementation? Flag tests that are over-DRY, use opaque fixtures, or have generic assertions.
Step 4 — Report
For each uncovered claim: MISSING-TEST <description>:<behavior> — one sentence stating what behavior has no falsifying test. For each DAMP violation: one sentence describing what the reader cannot infer from the test alone. If all claims are covered and tests are DAMP: COVERAGE ADEQUATE — list the claims checked and the Beyonce Rule check performed.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Why it's wrong |
|---|
| "I'll add tests later." | Beyonce Rule: if you liked it you should have put a test on it. Uncovered behavior is behavior you've agreed to change silently. "Later" is a statement that you don't care if this breaks before then. |
| "The code is simple, it doesn't need tests." | Simple code breaks silently. The Beyonce Rule applies regardless of code complexity — it applies to the behavior you care about, not to the code complexity. |
| "I factored out the test helpers to keep things DRY." | DAMP over DRY: test readability matters more than test deduplication. A DAMP test is self-contained; the failure tells you exactly what broke without tracing helpers. |
| "The tests pass, coverage must be fine." | Passing tests prove the behavior didn't break given the inputs the tests used. The Beyonce Rule asks about the behavior you care about — if you didn't write a test for it, passing tests say nothing about it. |
| "My regression test passes with the fix." | Passing doesn't mean the test was ever capable of failing. Revert the fix and confirm the test fails too, using the real bug's own reproduction shape — not a simplified stand-in that happens to pass either way. |
Verification checklist
Before reporting complete:
