Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →levnikolaevich/ln-23-test-suite-auditor
Audits whether an existing test suite proves important product behavior with strong, isolated tests.
Passed 10 of 15 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 15 without it.
and 6 more in the full report
5 fixed10 passed either way4 still failing4 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
During a test suite review of our inventory service, we found three tests that test the exact same internal helper function across three files, and one test for a deprecated API endpoint removed in v1. What portfolio action labels should be assigned to these items? Format the report in five standard sections (Result, Scope, Evidence, Verification, Completion).
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Applies MERGE to redundant test files testing the same internal helper. | Missed | Passed |
| Applies DELETE to obsolete tests for removed API endpoints. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Goal: Audit the test portfolio as a read-only lifecycle and confidence system. Determine which important failures it detects, which evidence is untrustworthy or obsolete, and which additions, changes, consolidations, retirements, or explicit omissions produce the smallest sustainable portfolio.
Execution contract: The ordered checkboxes are the Definition of Done. Track every item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with concrete evidence, CLEARED with evidence that its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, or tool failure is not proof. Reconcile items after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING and count only PROVEN and CLEARED; apply the skill's verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve user intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. Scale depth to material risk without silently skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety ordering; otherwise choose the verification method appropriate to each obligation.
| Need | Preferred tool | Use it when | Fallback |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source and test inventory | Native file listing, search, manifests, and test configuration | Mapping domains, test types, runners, fixtures, and generated areas | Repository tree plus known test entrypoints |
| Test-to-code relationships | Language server or host-native code intelligence | Mapping units, callers, implementations, routes, and test targets | Naming and path search verified by direct reads |
| Execution and trust | Repository-defined test commands through the shell | Establishing pass/fail state, timing, order dependence, or reproducibility | Inspect CI results and configuration; mark execution unavailable |
| Coverage and missed behavior | Existing coverage tools and reports | Coverage data is configured and comparable to source scope | Static behavior-to-test mapping; never invent percentages |
| Flake and isolation evidence | Repeated, shuffled, parallel, or seed-controlled runs supported by the repository | A test is suspected of order, time, randomness, or shared-state dependence | History, CI logs, and code-path evidence |
| Assertion strength | Test reads, failure output, and configured mutation testing | Determining whether tests fail for meaningful behavioral defects | Counterfactual reasoning tied to specific assertions |
| Framework semantics | Official test-runner or framework documentation | A finding depends on lifecycle, fixtures, retries, isolation, or mocking behavior | Primary-source web research; otherwise mark UNVERIFIED |
Run only safe test and diagnostic commands. Do not rewrite snapshots, update golden files, regenerate fixtures, or accept changed output during the audit.
KEEP, ADD, UPDATE, MERGE, DELETE, NO_TEST) separate from execution status (PASS, FAIL, BLOCKED, UNPROVEN, QUARANTINED). NO_TEST requires existing proof, another control, or explicit residual-risk acceptance.test cases passed, vs 9 / 15 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.