review-tests

Reviews existing test suites against a shared ruleset and returns findings without editing code.

2|Updated Jul 18, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Arasz/ai-badger --skill review-tests-arasz
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: review-tests
Source: https://github.com/Arasz/ai-badger/tree/main/features/common/skills/review-tests
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Arasz/ai-badger --skill review-tests-arasz

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes scripts (resource) and references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Green test suites can hide vacuous assertions, non-deterministic tests, unbound fakes, and gates that cannot fail. This Skill judges tests that already exist — a directory, a file list, a diff, or "the tests for X" — and returns a severity-graded improvement plan instead of trusting a passing run. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Nine-pass review walk: Runs cheapest-falsifier-first passes from runner observability (Pass 0) through determinism, oracles, doubles, and red-proof verification (Pass 8), each with explicit stop conditions. - Shared ruleset with evidence: Cites T0/T1/T2 rules backed by proven failures in references/evidence.md, with stack- and kind-specific rule files loaded only when relevant. - Structured improvement plan: Produces a fixed-column findings table with work packages consumable by the /task skill; anything not executed is labelled "unverified (static reasoning)". - Use Case: A reviewer asks "why did the suite stay green while that shipped?" — the Skill scopes to the PR diff, applies mutations to prove red, and returns blocker/major/minor findings with locations. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to review the tests in the current pull request diff and report whether any of them can actually fail.

Frequently Asked Questions about review-tests

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I review whether my existing tests are any good?

Point the Skill at a directory, file list, diff, or the tests for a named symbol. It runs a nine-pass walk — from runner observability through determinism, oracles, and doubles — and returns severity-graded findings with locations, never edits.

How do I check if a test can actually fail?

The Skill applies mutation-based red-proof: it names or applies the one-line production edit that should redden each test and records the observed failure. Findings not verified by execution are labelled "unverified (static reasoning)".

What happens if I give no review scope?

The Skill refuses to run without a target. It offers the three cheapest scopes instead: the current diff, the highest-risk untested area, or a named directory, because an unscoped sweep produces a list nobody acts on.

Does it support dotnet and React test stacks?

Yes. Stack-specific rule files exist for dotnet and TypeScript/React browser projects, loaded only when the target's files belong to that stack. Stub files also exist for Azure Functions, Cosmos, Node, Python, and Terraform.

Will it fix the test problems it finds?

No. The Skill returns findings only, formatted as an improvement plan with work packages for the /task skill to consume. A fix applied inside a review has no gate and no red proof behind it.

Why does it label some findings as unverified?

When a suite cannot run in the current worktree — for example without the full emulator stack — every finding is labelled "unverified (static reasoning)" in both the row and the summary, and the review names the command that failed.