Use when regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code. Triggers on \"ai-regression-testing\", \"ai regression testing\", \"testing\".
Scanned 9/19/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add majinmagros/magros.ai-skills --skill ai-regression-testing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ai Regression Testing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/majinmagros-ai-regression-testing)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ai-regression-testing
description: "Use when regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code. Triggers on \"ai-regression-testing\", \"ai regression testing\", \"testing\"."
metadata:
origin: ECC
---
# AI Regression Testing
Patterns for AI-assisted development where the same model writes and reviews code — systematic blind spots only automated tests catch. Detalhes em `references/`.
## When to Activate
- AI agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex) has modified API routes or backend logic
- A bug was found and fixed — need to prevent re-introduction
- Project has a sandbox/mock mode that can be leveraged for DB-free testing
- Running `/bug-check` or similar review commands after code changes
- Multiple code paths exist (sandbox vs production, feature flags, etc.)
## The Core Problem
AI reviewing its own fix carries the same assumptions into both steps:
```
AI writes fix → AI reviews fix → AI says "looks correct" → Bug still exists
```
Observed pattern: **sandbox/production path inconsistency** is the #1 AI-introduced regression (same bug re-introduced 4x, caught instantly once tested).
## Quick Reference
| AI Regression Pattern | Test Strategy | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Sandbox/production mismatch | Assert same response shape in sandbox mode | High |
| SELECT clause omission | Assert all required fields in response | High |
| Error state leakage | Assert state cleanup on error | Medium |
| Missing rollback | Assert state restored on API failure | Medium |
| Type cast masking null | Assert field is not undefined | Medium |
## References
- `references/sandbox-testing.md` — Vitest setup, request helpers, regression + parity tests
- `references/bug-check-workflow.md` — `/bug-check` command (tests → build → review → new test)
- `references/regression-patterns.md` — 4 FAIL/PASS patterns + test-where-bugs-were strategy
## DO / DON'T
**DO:**
- Write tests immediately after finding a bug (before fixing it if possible)
- Test the API response shape, not the implementation
- Run tests as the first step of every bug-check
- Keep tests fast (< 1 second total with sandbox mode)
- Name tests after the bug they prevent (e.g., "BUG-R1 regression")
**DON'T:**
- Write tests for code that has never had a bug
- Trust AI self-review as a substitute for automated tests
- Skip sandbox path testing because "it's just mock data"
- Write integration tests when unit tests suffice
- Aim for coverage percentage — aim for regression prevention
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!