Wjttc tester
Skill sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills/plugins/agentic-awesome-skills-claude/skills/wjttc-tester
F1-inspired test EXECUTOR + reporter. Runs a test plan, finds and reproduces bugs, audits suite signal integrity, then files a WJTTC report (Brake/Engine/Aero/Tyre/Pit) with a tier verdict. Use when you need to test code, validate functionality, reproduce a failure, or produce a test...From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills --skill wjttc-testerAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its file declares
Copied from the file, not written here
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the authorβs claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
8.5 KB, ~2.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
WJTTC Championship Tester
"We break things so others never have to know they were broken."
Apply F1-inspired standards to software testing. When brakes must work flawlessly at race pace, so must the code in production. This skill executes test plans and files reports β it is the driver, not the engineer. To plan and generate the suite, use wjttc-builder.
When to use this skill
- Running an existing or just-written test plan and reporting outcomes
- Reproducing and root-causing a reported bug
- Edge-case / error-handling / regression validation
- Auditing whether the suite's CI signal can still be trusted
- Producing a WJTTC report with a tier verdict
The WJTTC five tiers
Triage every test by blast radius. The first three set severity; Tyre and Pit cover durability and the release gate.
| Tier | Symbol | Meaning | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brake | π¨ | Life-critical β failure is catastrophic | data loss, auth bypass, payment errors, destructive ops without confirm |
| Engine | β‘ | Performance-critical β wrong results / poor UX | API accuracy, data transforms, calculations, format compliance, perf |
| Aero | π | Polish & edge cases β minor inconvenience | UI quirks, rare message formatting, optional-feature edges, docs |
| Tyre | π | Durability under load β degradation over time | stress/volume, concurrency, memory growth, large inputs |
| Pit | π§ | Release gate β the stop that lets you go | smoke/regression suite, CI green, the WJTTC report filed |
Test Brake first. If the brakes don't work, nothing else matters.
Step 0 β Signal Integrity pre-audit (run BEFORE adding/running anything new)
Red CI is a contract: it must always mean "stop, look, fix." A suite with high coverage but flaky reds is less trustworthy than a smaller suite with zero false alarms β because the team has stopped reading the reds. Fix the signal before you add more tests.
Method β classify the last 30 days of CI failures:
| Bucket | Definition | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Real bug | Red mapped to a real defect; fixed by a code change | β Signal worked |
| Flake | Timing/network/concurrency noise; passed on rerun, no code change | β Test design defect |
| Infra | Missing secret, runner image change, upstream dep β not the code | β Workflow design defect |
Signal Integrity Score: SI = Real bugs / (Real bugs + Flakes + Infra) Γ 100
| SI % | Verdict | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 100% | βͺ | Maintain β exemplary signal |
| 95β99% | β Championship | Annotate any flake immediately |
| 85β94% | β Acceptable | Schedule the flake-class fix this sprint |
| 70β84% | β Eroding | Stop adding tests β fix flakes first |
| <70% | β Dead signal | Block merges until signal restored |
Eliminate on sight: hard absolute-time perf asserts on shared runners (expect(t).toBeLessThan(30)) β move to a non-gating workflow; network calls in the main suite β mock at the boundary; concurrency tests without explicit ordering; secret-dependent steps that hard-fail when missing β grey-skip.
The inverse rule: green CI that passes while something is broken is equally a violation. If a real bug shipped despite green, write the regression test BEFORE the fix lands.
The conversation is the real gate. CI is supporting infrastructure for the human + AI audit; flaky CI wastes the audit's bandwidth. Signal Integrity keeps CI worthy of the conversation.
Execution loop
- Scope β what should it do? happy path, edges, failure modes, perf targets, tier of each.
- Audit signal (Step 0) before trusting or extending the suite.
- Run each test: set up, prepare data, execute, observe actual vs expected, record pass/fail/blocked, capture evidence on failure.
- Reproduce every failure deterministically; root-cause it; note the fix.
- Tier coverage check β confirm every test is tiered:
faf wjttc --path tests # audit tier coverage (vendor-neutral) faf wjttc --strict --json # CI gate: non-zero if any test is untiered - Report β file the WJTTC report (below), then surface the tier verdict.
WJTTC report format
Save reports to ./wjttc-reports/ in the project under test (or a path the user specifies). Never write to an absolute/personal path. Name files YYYY-MM-DD-{project}-{feature}-tests.yaml.
---
# WJTTC Test Report
project: "project-name"
feature: "feature-being-tested"
date: "2026-06-26"
tier: "Engine" # Brake | Engine | Aero | Tyre | Pit
result: "PASS" # PASS | FAIL | BLOCKED
environment: "OS, runtime version, key deps"
---
## Summary
objective: What was tested
totals: { total: 25, passed: 23, failed: 2, blocked: 0, pass_rate: "92%" }
## Failures
- name: "Long-string handling"
tier: "Engine β‘"
status: "FAIL"
steps: ["...", "..."]
expected: "Handle gracefully"
actual: "Crash"
error: "RangeError: ..."
root_cause: "Unbounded buffer"
fix: "Cap input length / stream"
## Edge cases
- { case: "Empty string", input: "''", expected: "error", actual: "error", status: "PASS" }
- { case: "Unicode", input: "ποΈ", expected: "stored", actual: "stored", status: "PASS" }
## Performance
- { op: "file read", target: "<50ms", actual: "18ms", status: "PASS" }
- { op: "parse YAML", target: "<50ms", actual: "12ms", status: "PASS" }
## Bugs found
- id: 1
title: "..."
severity: "Brake" # tier doubles as severity
reproducibility: "Always"
impact: "Who is affected, how serious"
fix: "..."
## Coverage
tested: ["happy path", "edges", "error handling", "perf"]
not_tested: ["concurrent access", "files >100MB"]
## Verdict
tier: "β Silver" # from the tier table below
to_next: ["Fix 2 failing Engine tests", "Add Tyre concurrency tests"]
Tier verdict
Map the pass rate (or SI score) to the single canonical FAF tier ladder. No second ladder, no medals.
| Score | Tier | Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| 100% | Trophy | βͺ |
| 99% | Gold | β |
| 95% | Silver | β |
| 85% | Bronze | β |
| 70% | Green | β |
| 55% | Yellow | β |
| 1% | Red | β |
| 0% | White | β‘ |
The FAF score is deterministic β same input, same score. A test report should be just as falsifiable: every verdict traces to a reproducible run. FAF doesn't lie.
WJTTC method notes
- Test with real data, not just sanitized inputs β anonymized production data, messy inputs, production-like volume.
- Document every failure so it can be reproduced: what failed, how to repro, why it matters, how to fix.
- Tier before you test β severity is the tier, so triage first;
faf wjttcenforces that nothing ships untiered. - Wire it into CI with TAF receipts so the report is part of the record, not a one-off:
faf taf setup --write # create .github/workflows/taf.yml (test receipts) faf score --json # deterministic score snapshot for the receipt
Quick checklist (before release)
- Signal Integrity audited (SI β₯ 85%)
- Brake tests pass β zero tolerance
- Edges + error handling tested
- Tyre: behaves under load / concurrency
-
faf wjttc --strictgreen β every test tiered - Regression (Pit) suite passes
- WJTTC report filed in
./wjttc-reports/ - Pass rate β₯ 85% (β Bronze, production-ready)
Resources
- Website: https://faf.one Β· Skills Site: https://skills.faf.one
- faf-cli: https://github.com/Wolfe-Jam/faf-cli
- Sibling skill: wjttc-builder (plan + generate the suite)
Made with π§‘ by wolfejam.dev β "We break things so others never have to know they were broken."
Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
- Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
- Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.