When checking that all callers of a contract implement it correctly, you get false positives from wrapper delegators:
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall --skill parity-guard-test-pattern --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Parity Guard Test Pattern?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/fabioc-aloha-parity-guard-test-pattern)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: parity-guard-test-pattern
description: "When checking that all callers of a contract implement it correctly, you get false positives from wrapper delegators:"
lastReviewed: 2026-04-30
---
# Parity Guard Test Pattern
## The Problem
When checking that all callers of a contract implement it correctly, you get false positives from wrapper delegators:
```javascript
// Contract: "All files that call exec() must handle exit code 2"
// Direct caller — MUST implement contract
execFileSync('node', [script]); // Must handle exit code
// Delegator — calls wrapper that already handles contract
runMuscle(script); // runMuscle handles exit code internally
```
Testing both the same way creates noise.
## The Solution
Split tests into DIRECT callers and DELEGATION callers.
```javascript
// parity-guard.test.js
const directCallers = findFiles((content) =>
content.includes("child_process") &&
/exec(File)?Sync|spawn/.test(content)
);
const wrapperCallers = findFiles((content) =>
/runMuscle|muscleAndPrompt|executeScript/.test(content)
);
describe('Contract: exit code handling', () => {
describe('Direct callers (must implement)', () => {
directCallers.forEach(file => {
it(`${file} handles exit code 2`, () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(file, 'utf8');
expect(content).toMatch(/exitCode|status|code.*===?\s*2/);
});
});
});
describe('Delegators (exempt — wrapper handles)', () => {
wrapperCallers.forEach(file => {
it(`${file} uses contract-compliant wrapper`, () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(file, 'utf8');
// Just verify they use the wrapper, not raw exec
expect(content).not.toMatch(/execFileSync|execSync/);
});
});
});
});
```
## Classification Rules
| Pattern | Category | Contract Obligation |
|---------|----------|-------------------|
| `require('child_process')` + `exec*` | Direct | Must implement |
| `import { spawn }` + `spawn()` | Direct | Must implement |
| `runMuscle()` | Delegator | Exempt |
| `shellExecute()` (if contract-compliant) | Delegator | Exempt |
## Verification
1. Direct callers all implement the contract
2. Delegators use compliant wrappers
3. No false positives from wrapper usage
4. New callers are automatically classified
## When to Apply
- Any "all X must do Y" contract
- Error handling requirements
- Logging requirements
- Security patterns (sanitization, auth checks)
## Tags
`quality` `testing` `contracts` `parity`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!