| name | testing-skills-with-subagents |
| description | Use when creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization - applies RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle to process documentation by running baseline without skill, writing to address failures, iterating to close loopholes |
| user-invocable | false |
Testing Skills With Subagents
Overview
Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation.
You run scenarios without the skill (RED - watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN - watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR - stay compliant).
Core principle: If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures.
REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill-specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables).
Complete worked example: See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.
When to Use
Test skills that:
- Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements)
- Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework)
- Could be rationalized away ("just this once")
- Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality)
Don't test:
- Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides)
- Skills without rules to violate
- Skills agents have no incentive to bypass
TDD Mapping for Skill Testing
| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do |
|---|
| RED | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
| Verify RED | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim |
| GREEN | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures |
| Verify GREEN | Pressure test | Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance |
| REFACTOR | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |
| Stay GREEN | Re-verify | Test again, ensure still compliant |
Same cycle as code TDD, different test format.
RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail)
Goal: Run test WITHOUT the skill - watch agent fail, document exact failures.
This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" - you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
Choosing the Model for RED
Run RED-phase tests at the model level you expect in production. If the skill will primarily be used by Sonnet agents, test with morphe:sonnet-general-purpose. If you're unsure which model users will run, use AskUserQuestion to ask — recommend Sonnet as the default.
The RED phase needs realistic baseline behavior. A stronger model might avoid pitfalls naturally; a weaker one might fail for unrelated reasons. Test at the level that represents actual usage.
Process:
Example:
IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
You spent 4 hours implementing a feature. It's working perfectly.
You manually tested all edge cases. It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm.
Code review tomorrow at 9am. You just realized you didn't write tests.
Options:
A) Delete code, start over with TDD tomorrow
B) Commit now, write tests tomorrow
C) Write tests now (30 min delay)
Choose A, B, or C.
Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes:
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve same goals"
- "Deleting is wasteful"
- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.
GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass)
Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases - write just enough to address the actual failures you observed.
Choosing the Model for GREEN
Run GREEN-phase tests one model tier below your expected production model. If you tested RED with Sonnet, test GREEN with Haiku. If you tested RED with Opus, test GREEN with Sonnet.
The weakest model that can follow the skill is the strongest test of whether the skill is clear. Haiku follows detailed instructions well but struggles with judgment calls — if your skill keeps Haiku on-rails, Sonnet and Opus will follow it easily. If Haiku can't follow the skill, your instructions aren't explicit enough.
Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re-test.
VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing
Goal: Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.
Method: Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures.
Writing Pressure Scenarios
Bad scenario (no pressure):
You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?
Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.
Good scenario (single pressure):
Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?
Time pressure + authority + consequences.
Great scenario (multiple pressures):
You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
Just realized you forgot TDD.
Options:
A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit
Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.
Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences.
Forces explicit choice.
Pressure Types
| Pressure | Example |
|---|
| Time | Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing |
| Sunk cost | Hours of work, "waste" to delete |
| Authority | Senior says skip it, manager overrides |
| Economic | Job, promotion, company survival at stake |
| Exhaustion | End of day, already tired, want to go home |
| Social | Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible |
| Pragmatic | "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" |
Best tests combine 3+ pressures.
Key Elements of Good Scenarios
- Concrete options - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
- Real constraints - Specific times, actual consequences
- Real file paths -
/tmp/payment-system not "a project"
- Make agent act - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
- No easy outs - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing
Testing Setup
IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
You have access to: [skill-being-tested]
Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.
REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green)
Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression - you need to refactor the skill to prevent it.
Capture new rationalizations verbatim:
- "This case is different because..."
- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
- "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently"
- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
- "Deleting X hours is wasteful"
- "Keep as reference while writing tests first"
- "I already manually tested it"
Document every excuse. These become your rationalization table.
Plugging Each Hole
For each new rationalization, add:
1. Explicit Negation in Rules
```markdown
Write code before test? Delete it.
```
```markdown
Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
</After>
### 2. Entry in Rationalization Table
```markdown
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
3. Red Flag Entry
## Red Flags - STOP
- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
4. Update description
description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.
Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.
Re-verify After Refactoring
Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.
Agent should now:
- Choose correct option
- Cite new sections
- Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed
If agent finds NEW rationalization: Continue REFACTOR cycle.
If agent follows rule: Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.
Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)
After agent chooses wrong option, ask:
your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.
How could that skill have been written differently to make
it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?
Three possible responses:
-
"The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"
- Not documentation problem
- Need stronger foundational principle
- Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"
-
"The skill should have said X"
- Documentation problem
- Add their suggestion verbatim
-
"I didn't see section Y"
- Organization problem
- Make key points more prominent
- Add foundational principle early
When Skill is Bulletproof
Signs of bulletproof skill:
- Agent chooses correct option under maximum pressure
- Agent cites skill sections as justification
- Agent acknowledges temptation but follows rule anyway
- Meta-testing reveals "skill was clear, I should follow it"
Not bulletproof if:
- Agent finds new rationalizations
- Agent argues skill is wrong
- Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
- Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation
Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing
Initial Test (Failed)
Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
Agent chose: C (write tests after)
Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"
Iteration 1 - Add Counter
Added section: "Why Order Matters"
Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"
Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle
Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
Cited: New principle directly
Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"
Bulletproof achieved.
Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills)
Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:
RED Phase:
GREEN Phase:
REFACTOR Phase:
Common Mistakes (Same as TDD)
❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED)
Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing.
✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first.
❌ Not watching test fail properly
Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios.
✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate.
❌ Weak test cases (single pressure)
Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple.
✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion).
❌ Not capturing exact failures
"Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent.
✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim.
❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters)
"Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does.
✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization.
❌ Stopping after first pass
Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof.
✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations.
Quick Reference (TDD Cycle)
| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | Model | Success Criteria |
|---|
| RED | Run scenario without skill | Production-level (default: Sonnet) | Agent fails, document rationalizations |
| Verify RED | Capture exact wording | Same as RED | Verbatim documentation of failures |
| GREEN | Write skill addressing failures | One tier down (default: Haiku) | Agent now complies with skill |
| Verify GREEN | Re-test scenarios | Same as GREEN | Agent follows rule under pressure |
| REFACTOR | Close loopholes | Same as GREEN | Add counters for new rationalizations |
| Stay GREEN | Re-verify | Same as GREEN | Agent still complies after refactoring |
The Bottom Line
Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits.
If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents.
RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for code.
Real-World Impact
From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025-10-03):
- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
- Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations
- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
- Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
- Same process works for any discipline-enforcing skill
