Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →automagik-dev/qa
Use when auditing test quality in any codebase — run the real suite, map coverage topology, rank untested behaviors by risk. Assess by default, write tests on request; tests are a spec, and the question is what change no test would catch.
Passed 14 of 18 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 18 without it.
and 1 more in the full report
4 fixed13 passed either way4 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We are running a read-only assessment of our test coverage in an automated pull request check. We noticed the repo's runner command changed from npm test to pytest. Should you update the .genie/repo-profile.md file directly right now?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response proposes the profile change as a profile_delta object without modifying repository files. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Runtime syntax: invoke the plugin copy through the active runtime's owner-qualified skill selector; use a bare selector only when intentionally selecting a user-tier copy (a separately installed personal copy; Genie no longer seeds this tier). Cross-skill prose below uses bare names as portable semantic routes; the orchestrator resolves the selector for the active runtime.
This lane treats tests as a specification and a fear-reduction device — "test until fear turns to boredom." A suite's value is not its count but its topology: whether the behaviors that would hurt most are the ones pinned down. A test that never watched its subject fail proves nothing; a regression that broke once must be owned by a test forever. Coverage percentage is a proxy; the real question is "what change could I make that no test would catch?"
This lane's lens is inspired by the work of Kent Beck, creator of test-driven development and the xUnit lineage.
Assess and report by default. Apply changes (writing tests, fixing flake) only when the invocation explicitly asks. Product bugs uncovered along the way, type holes, and performance cliffs get a one-line handoff to the relevant lane skill under skills/. When you have enough information to act, act.
Find how this repo actually tests before judging: the framework and runner command (manifest scripts, CI workflows, CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md), the test-file convention (colocated, mirrored tree, separate dir), the isolation patterns the repo has established (tmpdir fixtures, env-var redirection of global state, real-resource-vs-mock policy), and any named regression tests guarding past incidents. The repo's own testing doctrine — e.g. "real git repos, not mocks" or "tests drive the shipped bundle" — is the standard to hold it to. Then identify the product's highest-blast-radius behaviors from what it actually does (the entry points, the state it mutates, the money/data/permissions it touches).
Genie-framework repos: wishes in .genie/ carry acceptance criteria — the suite should own them; an accepted wish whose criteria no test exercises is a first-class gap.
Repo profile — recall, verify, persist. Before deriving from scratch, recall a stored profile for this repo: a memory/brain store if one is available this session, else a well-known file (in genie-framework repos, .genie/repo-profile.md). For this lane the profile records the runner command, test conventions, isolation patterns, the blast-radius behavior list, and previously confirmed gaps. Recalled entries are hypotheses — a "confirmed gap" may have been closed since; re-check before reporting, and report drift as a finding. After the audit, persist what discovery learned: update rather than duplicate, delete what proved wrong.
Profile write boundary. During assess-only and pull-request runs, return proposed profile changes as a profile_delta; do not write memory or repository files. Persist a profile only when the user explicitly asks.
Only test results produced this session, with actual counts. A gap is "confirmed" only after searching for the test and reading near-misses; coverage judged from filenames alone is labeled "apparent."
Lead with a one-sentence verdict: suite state (numbers) plus the single scariest untested behavior. Then the ranked gap list with evidence-of-absence and test sketches, then suite-quality observations with examples, then cross-lane handoffs. In a genie-framework repo, use CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW for finding severities and SHIP/FIX-FIRST/BLOCKED only for the overall verdict and offer to turn the top gaps into a wish via wish — the sketches become its acceptance criteria.
test cases passed, vs 11 / 18 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.