Testing

Testing -- Unit & Integration Tests

Creates tests that fit into the existing codebase. Detects the framework, patterns, and conventions automatically from the project.

Writing style and frontmatter rules: See skills/project-conventions/SKILL.md#canonical-specs (Writing style, Frontmatter spec).

MANDATORY Pre-Phase 0: Branch and item check

Standard ritual, full rules in skills/project-conventions/references/team-workflow.md: identify the active item (tests usually continue on the same FEAT/FIX/IMP branch), verify the branch matches <type>/<item-id-lower>-<slug> (AskUserQuestion on mismatch), run flow.py create-issue + open-draft-pr when GitHub sync is on, tag the phase at ritual end (--phase test), and write .git/dia-active-skill.

MANDATORY Phase 0: Artifact triage

New tests bind to an existing FEATURE, IMP, or FIX id. Exception: read-only analysis (coverage report, gap identification, reading existing tests) does not need triage.

If the binding cannot be derived from the prompt, ask once before the first new test (user's working language):

"Does this test run belong to a FEATURE, an IMP, or a FIX? Please name the ID."

Triage details: skills/project-conventions/references/graph-invariants.md, section "Artifact triage at entry point".

MANDATORY: Verify gate language

/testing shares the verify gate with /coding. No completion claim without fresh verification evidence in the current message.

Hard threshold for "all green": 0 test failures, 0 lint errors (if lint runs in the suite), coverage not regressed (line/branch/function each at or above the project target from _devprocess/rules/technical.md or Coverage section).

Forbidden without fresh verification: "should pass", "tests should be green now", "looks good", "probably fine". The skill executes the test command IN THIS MESSAGE before any completion claim. Cached output and stale logs are not evidence.

Codebase analysis first

Before writing tests, scan the project for:

• Test framework and config (package.json scripts/devDeps, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, existing test files)
• Test location and naming (tests/, tests/, .test.ts vs .spec.ts vs _test.py, conftest.py, fixtures)
• Conventions in use (mocking style, async handling, assertions, shared helpers, untested areas)

This is internal analysis; do not write back into FEATURE/BACKLOG. Adopt the patterns the project already uses. Do not introduce new frameworks unless the project has none.

Priority order

Unit > integration > e2e, scope-aware. Focus of this skill: integration tests (primary) and unit tests (TDD fallback or gap-filling). E2E is a separate topic.

Role alongside TDD

When /coding runs in TDD mode (see coding/SKILL.md Phase 3b), unit tests already exist. /testing then focuses on, in priority:

1. Integration tests (primary). Multi-module flows: API endpoints, DB access, event/message flows, external integrations with mocked boundaries.
2. Unit test gaps (secondary). Edge cases, error paths, boundary conditions missed by the RED tests.
3. Coverage check (tertiary). Report against targets; gaps listed, not auto-filled.

If /coding ran without TDD, /testing also creates the unit tests following AAA and FIRST.

Unit Tests

When. Public functions with logic, utilities, data transformations, error handling. Skip trivial getters/setters and pure pass-throughs.

AAA Pattern (Arrange, Act, Assert)

Every test follows the AAA shape:

• Arrange: build inputs, fixtures, mocks
• Act: invoke the unit under test once
• Assert: check return value, state change, or thrown error
• One behavior per test; name it after the behavior, not the method

Match the project's existing assertion verbosity; do not add // Arrange comments unless they already exist.

FIRST Principles

Fast (<1s/test), Independent, Repeatable, Self-validating, Timely.

Per-function checklist

Full version: references/test-checklist.md. Short version: happy path, edge cases (empty/null/undefined/boundary), error cases (invalid inputs, missing dependencies), boundary conditions (min/max, empty, large).

Mocking rules

Mock external dependencies (APIs, FS, DB) only. Never mock the unit under test. Prefer dependency injection over global mocks. Reuse the project's existing mock patterns.

Integration Tests

When. Multi-module interactions, API request -> response, DB access (test DB or in-memory), event/message flows.

Rules. Real dependencies where possible; mock only external services. Each test independent (own state and teardown). Realistic test data, not foo/bar/test. Set timeouts for async. Use beforeAll/afterAll only for shared resources.

File naming

Follow the existing project pattern. If none exists: {module}.test.ts or {module}.spec.ts for unit, {module}.integration.test.ts for integration. Same directory as source, or under tests/.

Test workflow

Trigger	Steps
Existing feature without tests	Analyze file -> identify testables -> recognize patterns -> create tests (AAA/FIRST) -> run -> coverage
New feature after /coding	Read FEATURE spec Success Criteria -> identify changed files -> integration tests -> fill unit gaps -> verify SC

Coverage targets

Metric	Target	Minimum
Line Coverage	85%	70%
Branch Coverage	80%	65%
Function Coverage	90%	75%

Guidelines only. Project-specific targets in CLAUDE.md, feature specs, or _devprocess/rules/technical.md take precedence.

Anti-patterns

Full version: references/test-anti-patterns.md. Short version: no testing of implementation details (test behavior); no excessive mocking (5+ mocks signals a design problem); no trivial tests; no fragile tests that break on refactor; no testing of timers (test the result).

---

Fix-Loop: Tests -> Fix -> Re-Test

When tests fail, a fix-loop starts. The user decides how to proceed.

Step 1: Summarize test results

Emit the canonical Test Result block (referenced as TEST-RESULT-BLOCK elsewhere in this skill):

=== Test Result ===

Passed: {N} tests
Failed: {N} tests
Coverage: {line}% / {branch}% / {function}%

Failed tests:
- {test name}: {short error description}
  Cause: code bug / wrong test expectation / missing implementation
  Fix effort: S/M/L
  File: {src/path/file.ts} or {tests/path/test.ts}

Coverage gaps:
- {src/path/file.ts}: {function} not tested

Step 2: Ask user how to proceed

How should I proceed?

A) Fix all findings automatically
   -> I fix everything, retest, repeat until all tests are green

B) Approve fixes one by one
   -> I show each fix before implementation

C) Adjust tests because the FEATURE spec changed
   -> Allowed ONLY with all three pieces of evidence (see Step 3)

D) Abort -- I want to look at findings manually first

Step 3: Fix implementation

For each fix:

1. Identify cause (code bug vs. test error)
2. Implement fix
3. Run affected tests
4. On Option B: show fix to user before continuing

Option C gate (binding). Weakening or changing a test is only legitimate when the requirement itself changed. Before any test edit under Option C, all three must exist:

(a) the Success Criterion in the referenced FEATURE spec is amended (with a one-line comment explaining the change), (b) the active PLAN gets a Change Log entry referencing the test path, (c) the diff of the test is shown to the user BEFORE the edit.

Without all three, /testing blocks Option C and returns to A/B/D. "The test is inconvenient" is never a reason; that case is a code bug (Option A/B).

Step 4: Re-test (automatic)

After all fixes: run the full test suite again and emit the TEST-RESULT-BLOCK from Step 1. If failures remain, return to Step 1. The loop repeats until all tests are green or the user aborts.

Step 5: Update artifacts (backlog-first)

After a successful test run:

1. Backlog row first. Update every FEATURE/FIX/IMP/PLAN row whose status the test run changed. Coverage notes go into Notes column. Transitions: In Progress -> In Review or In Progress -> Done.
2. Feature specs (substance only). Verify Success Criteria accuracy. Status lives in the backlog row, not the spec.
3. Wayfinder. New entry-point or undocumented module discovered: add the row to src/ARCHITECTURE.map and write the JSDoc header.
4. Living Documents writeback (per /coding rules) if code fixes were needed during the test run.

The pre-commit hook enforces the drift-critical invariants on the phase-end commit; the full /consistency-check runs before release, not per phase.

---

Handoff Ritual (mandatory at end of phase)

/testing always runs this ritual at the end, regardless of how it was started (directly or via /dia-guide).

Part 1: Artifact report

Reference the final TEST-RESULT-BLOCK from the fix-loop (Step 1) for pass/fail and coverage numbers. Add the produced or updated artifacts:

Produced / updated:
- tests/{paths}
- Fix-loop status: {N iterations, N fixes applied}
- _devprocess/requirements/features/FEATURE-*.md: {test-status updates}
- _devprocess/context/BACKLOG.md: {coverage items added, dashboard refreshed}

Part 2: Handoff context

Goes into the phase-end commit BODY as short bullets (the trailers carry the machine-readable transition):

• Coverage gaps that the user accepted (with justification)
• Open test cases deferred to the next cycle
• Brittle tests or flaky patterns noted during the fix-loop
• Any security-adjacent concerns (e.g. input validation holes noticed while writing tests) for the security-audit phase

Part 3: Phase-end commit

Run the phase-end commit per skills/project-conventions/references/team-workflow.md section "Phase-end commit (binding)". It stages every artefact produced (tests, coverage config, FEATURE updates, BACKLOG updates), commits, tags the phase, and opens a draft PR if missing.

Canonical commit message for TESTING:

test: <ITEM-ID> testing complete

<one-line summary: N tests added, coverage L%/B%/F%>
<accepted gaps / deferred cases / flaky notes as short bullets>

Refs: <ITEM-ID>
DIA-Phase: test-done
DIA-Handoff: <ITEM-ID> -> security-audit

After the commit lands:

python3 tools/github-integration/flow.py tag-phase --item <ID> --phase test
python3 tools/github-integration/flow.py sync-status --item <ID>

sync-status mirrors BACKLOG Status to the GitHub issue/project (and Assignee back to Claim). No-op outside mode = "github-sync". Skip the commit silently if the working tree has no changes.

Part 4: Transition question

Ask the user:

"Tests are complete and all green. Coverage: {line}% / {branch}% / {function}%. Recommended next: /security-audit.

Shall I start /security-audit now, or would you like to review first?"

On agreement ("yes" / "go" / "next") or when running inside /dia-guide: -> Start /security-audit and pass the handoff context

On rejection ("no" / "stop" / "I want to check first"): -> Pause and wait for user instruction

Keywords

Tests, unit tests, integration tests, test coverage, testing, TDD, coverage gaps, test pyramid, fix-loop, re-test, regression, handoff