test

name	test
description	Write/run tests, check coverage, or TDD discipline. Triggers "test", "write tests", "add tests", "run tests", "coverage", "unit test", "integration test", "TDD", "test-first", "red-green-refactor", "bugs-that-must-not-recur"; post-implementation, pre-merge.
context	fork
agent	tester

Testing Workflow

Delegates to the Tester agent for test coverage and verification.

Workflow

1. Identify - Determine what needs testing (component, hook, utility, integration)
2. Write - Create test files colocated with source (e.g., button.test.tsx)
3. Run - Execute tests and verify results
4. Report - Summarize coverage and gaps

Testing Priorities

1. Critical paths - Auth, payments, core features
2. Edge cases - Error states, empty states, boundaries
3. User interactions - Forms, buttons, navigation
4. Integration points - API calls, external services

Rationalization Counters

If you catch yourself thinking any of the following, STOP — you are skipping testing:

Rationalization	Why It's Wrong
"This is too simple to test"	Simple functions with edge cases are exactly what tests catch
"I'll add tests later"	Later never comes; untested code ships and breaks
"The types guarantee correctness"	Types check structure, not logic — add(a, b) returning a - b passes TypeScript
"It's just UI, tests don't help"	Interaction tests catch regressions that visual review misses
"Manual testing is enough"	Manual testing doesn't run in CI and doesn't prevent regressions
"Tests are passing immediately"	Tests that pass on first run without failing first may not be testing what you think — verify the test actually exercises the code path

Red Flags

• Tests pass immediately on first write: Suspicious. Verify the test would fail if the implementation were wrong.
• No assertions: A test without assertions is not a test.
• Mocking everything: If you mock the thing you're testing, you're testing the mock.
• A batch of tests written before any has run: a batch against imagined behavior pins what you guessed — those tests fail on harmless changes and pass while the real path is broken. Write one, watch it go red, earn green, then write the next; each cycle tells you what the next test should actually assert.
• Asserting internals: assert observable behavior through the outermost practical entry point (return values, exit codes, persisted rows, rendered output) — never which internal functions ran. A public-surface test survives a rewrite of everything underneath; an internals test breaks on every refactor and pins implementation, not behavior.

Output

Return a summary:

• Tests written: New test files/cases
• Tests passing: Status
• Coverage: Key areas covered
• Gaps: What still needs testing

---

Variant: TDD (test-first discipline)

A test-first discipline that produces tests which describe behavior through public interfaces, not implementation. Such tests survive refactors. Tests coupled to internals do not — they break the moment you rename a function and pass when behavior actually breaks.

Before exploring the codebase, follow ../context-doc/DOMAIN-AWARENESS.md. Test names and interface vocabulary should match the project's CONTEXT.md.

Anti-pattern: horizontal slices

Do not write all tests first, then all implementation. That produces tests describing imagined behavior. They test the shape of things (data structures, function signatures) instead of user-facing capability. They go insensitive to real changes — they pass when behavior breaks and fail when behavior is fine.

WRONG (horizontal):
  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5

RIGHT (vertical):
  RED→GREEN: test1 → impl1
  RED→GREEN: test2 → impl2
  ...

Each cycle responds to what you learned from the previous one. You can only write the right test for behavior N after implementing behavior N−1.

Workflow

1. Plan

Before writing any code:

• Confirm with the user what interface changes are needed
• Confirm which behaviors to test (prioritize — you can't test everything)
• List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
• Get user approval on the plan

Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important?"

2. Tracer bullet

Write one test confirming one thing about the system:

RED:   test for first behavior → fails
GREEN: minimal code to pass → passes

This proves the path works end-to-end. Don't move on until it passes.

3. Incremental loop

For each remaining behavior:

RED:   next test → fails
GREEN: minimal code to pass → passes

To run the red→green cycle autonomously across turns, set /goal every planned behavior has a passing test and the full suite exits 0. The evaluator reads the test output from the transcript after each turn — don't phrase the condition as something only the runtime can prove (file flags, etc.).

Rules:

• One test at a time
• Only enough code to pass the current test
• Don't anticipate future tests
• Keep tests focused on observable behavior

4. Refactor

After all tests pass, look for cleanup:

• Extract duplication
• Deepen modules — move complexity behind simple interfaces
• Apply naming from CONTEXT.md
• Run the full test suite after each refactor step

Never refactor while red. Get to green first.

Per-cycle checklist

• Test describes behavior, not implementation
• Test uses only the public interface
• Test would survive an internal refactor
• Code is minimal for this test
• No speculative features added

When TDD is the wrong tool

• One-shot scripts, prototypes, throwaway exploration
• UI work where the "behavior" is visual and a snapshot/visual test is more useful
• Code where the public interface is dictated by an external spec (just write the conformance test, then implement)

For these, use /build (scaffold-then-test) or /fix (existing-bug pipeline) instead.