rogee/superpowers
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git synced 2026-07-07 02:09:04 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor(skills): compress writing-good-tests additions; doc changes earn no tests

Browse Source 
Prose additions from the last two passes tightened to the terse guard
form: change-detector rule, string-presence trap, and Rule 7's release
valve each drop to a few sentences. Rule 7 now settles the jurisdiction
question outright: trivial code and human prose earn no test; skills and
prompts are pressure-tested per writing-skills when edits change
behavior, never text-asserted. Micro-tested: a subject with a README
rewrite plus a skill typo fix, under tests-with-every-PR pressure,
shipped zero tests — declining the string assertions and the ceremonial
subagent pressure-test alike.
This commit is contained in:
Jesse Vincent
2026-07-05 17:47:02 -04:00
parent deb9d855cb
commit 8afa64b49d
1 changed files with 17 additions and 19 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
skills/test-driven-development/writing-good-tests.md
View File

@@ -59,23 +59,18 @@ test('formats timestamp', () => {
A mirror assertion re-derives the answer with the answer's own machinery:
it passes no matter what that machinery does.
**Falsifiable is necessary, not sufficient — name the break.** A test must
fail for the right reason: name the wrong branch, missing side effect,
wrong argument, boundary case, or contract violation it would catch. If
every change that could fail it is an intentional decision — a constant's
value, the exact wording of a message, private structure — you have
written a change detector, not a test: it fires on redesign and sleeps
through bugs. Test the behavior that depends on the decision instead.
**Name the break, not just the change.** A test earns its place by
catching a wrong branch, missing side effect, wrong argument, boundary,
or broken contract. If only intentional decisions can fail it — a
constant's value, exact message wording — it is a change detector: it
fires on redesign and sleeps through bugs.
**The string-presence trap.** For a script, skill, prompt, or config, a
test that asserts the source contains an exact line counterfeits this
rule: it can fail (delete the line), so it passes the letter of
falsifiability while asserting only that the source is the source. It
breaks on every legitimate rewording and survives every real regression.
The observable for a script is what it does — run it against controlled
inputs and assert outputs, side effects, or exit codes. The observable
for a document that instructs an agent is the consuming agent's behavior
— pressure-test it. Text containment is never the observable.
**The string-presence trap.** Asserting that a script, skill, or config
contains an exact line counterfeits falsifiability: it proves only that
the source is the source, breaking on every rewording and surviving every
real regression. Run scripts and assert outputs, side effects, or exit
codes; test agent-instructing documents by their consumer's behavior.
Text containment is never the observable.
### Gate Function
@@ -336,9 +331,12 @@ Testing is part of implementation. The TDD cycle — failing test, minimal
implementation, refactor — is what "complete" means; "implementation
complete, ready for testing" describes an unfinished task.
Ship the tests the behavior needs — and only those. A change that touches
only trivial code (Rule 6) earns no ceremonial test: a test written to
satisfy process protects nothing and costs maintenance forever.
Ship the tests the behavior needs — and only those. Trivial-code changes
(Rule 6) and prose for humans (READMEs, comments, docs) earn no test:
there is no behavior to protect, and a test written to satisfy process
costs maintenance forever. Skills and prompts follow their own discipline
— pressure-test the consuming agent when an edit changes behavior
(superpowers:writing-skills) — never their text.
## Rule 8: Prefer Real Components Over Complex Mocks