test-review

Evaluate software test quality against Farley's eight properties and severity model.

Updated May 10, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/rob-broadley/ai-airbase --skill test-review-rob-broadley
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: test-review
Source: https://github.com/rob-broadley/ai-airbase/tree/main/cadre/skills/test-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/rob-broadley/ai-airbase --skill test-review-rob-broadley

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It helps you identify test quality problems that cause slow feedback, flaky behavior, misleading results, and coverage blind spots—so regressions are caught quickly and reliably.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Evaluate tests against Dave Farley’s 8 properties: fast, isolated, repeatable, self-validating, timely, readable, specific, and comprehensive.
  • Detect test double misuse and tautology theatre: mocks/stubs that validate nothing, interaction-only verification, and trivial assertions.
  • Flag fragility and coverage gap patterns: order coupling, error-message string matching, missing boundary/error-path tests, and weak mutation-testing outcomes.
  • Apply a three-tier severity model: Blocking, Recommendation, and Observation to prioritize fixes.
  • Use case: reviewing a failing CI suite or adding tests to new code by systematically checking quality properties, error paths, boundaries, and potential flakiness sources.

Quick Start

Review the relevant test files and identify any Blocking or Recommendation issues using Farley’s 8 properties, then prioritize fixes starting with the highest-severity findings.

Frequently Asked Questions about test-review

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I review unit tests for flakiness and brittleness before they cause CI failures?

Review unit tests for flakiness by evaluating them against Farley's eight properties—fast, isolated, repeatable, self-validating, timely, readable, specific, and comprehensive—then flag interaction-only mocks and order coupling as fragility signals.

What are the most common test double misuse patterns that cause misleading test results?

Test double misuse typically involves mocks and stubs that validate nothing, interaction-only verification without state assertions, and tautology theatre where trivial assertions pass regardless of actual logic, producing misleading regression safety signals.

How do I systematically identify coverage gaps in an integration test suite?

Identify coverage gaps by checking for missing boundary tests, absent error-path validation, weak mutation-testing outcomes, and error-message string matching patterns that indicate fragile assertions rather than genuine behavioral coverage.

What's the best way to prioritize fixes when reviewing a failing test suite?

Prioritize test review fixes using a three-tier severity model: Blocking issues that break feedback loops first, Recommendations for maintainability improvements next, and Observations for non-critical findings, addressing the highest-severity findings first.

When should I check for test fragility signals during feature delivery?

Check for test fragility signals during feature delivery when adding new tests, during refactoring to prevent regressions, and when reviewing failing CI suites, systematically verifying quality properties, error paths, boundaries, and potential flakiness sources.