Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsBlogPro
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges
  • Chrome Extension
  • Skill Manager

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Test Audit

ASecurity

Invoke whenever writing, changing, reviewing, or sweeping tests. Authoring gate for new tests plus audit workflow for low-value, implementation-coupled, or duplicative tests and the test-only production seams they demand.

3 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 10/1/2026
code-qualitygorefactoringgitapisecurity

Works with

api

Security Analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 5 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned 10/1/2026

$npx -y skills add twikus/claude-configuration --skill test-audit --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Test Audit?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Test Audit
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/twikus-test-audit/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/twikus-test-audit)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: test-audit
description: "Invoke whenever writing, changing, reviewing, or sweeping tests. Authoring gate for new tests plus audit workflow for low-value, implementation-coupled, or duplicative tests and the test-only production seams they demand."
---

# Test Audit

Three modes, one value bar. Authoring mode gates every new or changed test at
write time. Audit mode runs focused sweeps of tests that re-assert source,
duplicate stronger proof, couple behavior to implementation, or keep test-only
production seams alive. Continue broad audits as separate coherent follow-up
PRs; optimize for confidence, not deletion count. Campaign mode prunes one
whole subsystem's test surface (every test file a package, plugin, or core area
owns); before starting one, read [CAMPAIGN.md](CAMPAIGN.md).

## Authoring gate

Before adding any test, answer four questions; a missing answer means do not
add it yet:

1. What observable behavior, invariant, or independent contract does it protect?
2. What credible regression makes it fail?
3. Why does existing coverage not already catch that failure? Each contract has
   one primary test owner at the strongest boundary; another layer needs its
   own distinct risk, such as a transport or lifecycle failure the owner cannot
   reach. Prefer extending a table-driven case or shared fixture over a
   near-duplicate test; consolidate duplicated setup in the same change.
4. Does it need a production seam (export, flag, wrapper, injection hook) that no
   production caller needs? If yes, move the test to the real boundary instead.

Then check the test against every [junk pattern](#junk-patterns); a match fails
the gate unless the [retention bar](#retention-bar) names the contract it
independently guards. A test that would break under behavior-preserving
refactoring is asserting implementation, not behavior; rewrite it at the
owning boundary before landing it.

Bug regression tests must fail on the pre-fix code for the intended reason and
pass after the owner-boundary repair. A regression test that never demonstrably
failed proves the mock, not the fix. One regression at the owner boundary
covers the bug; do not replay the same scenario at every layer it crosses.

## Junk patterns

The shared checklist for both modes: the authoring gate rejects a new test that
matches one, and audits hunt for existing tests that do.

- assertion-free coverage probes;
- self-comparisons and identity copiers;
- copied fixtures, inventories, manifests, or export lists;
- exact source, import, or string greps;
- private predicate or call-shape tests duplicated at real boundaries;
- duplicate invocations of the same contract;
- provider-local replays of shared helpers;
- tests whose only purpose is preserving test-only exports, globals, or wrappers;
- dead production code whose only callers are tests;
- expected values produced by the helper or renderer under test;
- mocks that implement the asserted behavior, or one identical mock standing in
  for different APIs;
- fixtures that supply the receipt, admission, or callback ordering the owner
  should produce, or persistence asserted against a store the path never writes;
- capability tests that restate declared flags instead of exercising the
  delivery or acknowledgement the flag promises;
- negative controls that pass for an unrelated reason, such as a denial from a
  different guard or a rejection the production path never reaches;
- names or fixtures that promise more than the input exercises, such as a
  "retires the window" test asserting the window was not cleared.

## Value bar

Tests justify their maintenance cost by protecting behavior, a credible
regression, or an independently meaningful contract. In an audit, an existing
test that must change for behavior-preserving source reorganization is suspect,
not automatically deletable; the authoring gate still rejects new ones.

Before judging a candidate, read the complete test and production owner, its
entry point, callers, callees, sibling implementations, overlapping tests, CI
routing, and relevant history. Read root and scoped `AGENTS.md` files first.
When the test claims dependency-backed behavior, inspect the dependency source
or types directly.

## Discovery

Keep discovery read-only and report evidence before editing. For broad scope,
run parallel discovery lanes when available:

- core source and packages;
- plugins, extensions, or integrations;
- UI, apps, scripts, and tooling;
- a cross-cutting pattern sweep.

Outside campaign mode, prefer a few high-confidence candidates over a large
speculative inventory. Hunt for the [junk patterns](#junk-patterns).

## Retention bar

Keep a test when it independently enforces a public API, SDK, protocol, config,
migration, storage, security, platform, default, generated-output, package,
release, or architecture contract. Also keep:

- call ordering when order is observable behavior;
- regressions with a credible failure mode;
- source inspection when it is the cheapest independent guard: it fails when
  the contract changes (the user-facing key, byte, or path) and survives an
  identifier-only refactor;
- a retained test that fails on the baseline: treat it as a possible product
  bug, reproduce it, and repair the owner rather than deleting it.

Static or slow is not a deletion reason. A test that resembles implementation
may still be the independent contract; prove otherwise before removing it.

## Candidate evidence

Record every field below before editing. A missing field means the candidate is
not ready for deletion:

- exact test name and location;
- what failure it can actually detect;
- non-test callers of the covered production or support seam;
- stronger remaining owner-boundary proof, or why no proof is needed;
- relevant history and the reason the test or seam exists;
- production or test-support deletion unlocked;
- risk and the focused validation command.

## Edit shape

Choose one coherent owner-boundary batch. Delete obsolete test-only exports,
globals, wrappers, and dead production paths instead of preserving aliases.
Move retained regressions to their canonical owners. Consolidate repeated
package or dependency assertions into one generic contract.

Prefer net-negative production LOC. Do not add replacement tests that restate
the same implementation, and do not convert uncertain candidates into cleanup
to increase deletion counts.

## Validation

Never edit source or tests while a test watcher is running in the checkout. Use
the test commands documented in the repository's `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, or
package scripts.

1. Run the smallest owner and sibling tests with the repository's test runner,
   filtered to the affected paths.
2. For removed source greps or plan assertions, run the executable script or
   dry-run that owns the real contract.
3. Run targeted formatting, then `git diff --check`.
4. Run the changed-files gate required by repository policy (lint, typecheck,
   and the CI checks those paths trigger).
5. Inspect `git diff --numstat`; report production/tooling separately from
   tests and test support.
6. After final audit edits, get an independent review of the deleted coverage
   against the remaining keepers.

## Landing and continuation

Commit, push, open a PR, or land only when authorized. Follow the repository's
PR flow. Land one coherent PR at a time; after landing, refresh from current
`main` and rerun read-only discovery for the next high-confidence batch.

## Handoff

Report:

- root cause and removed low-value categories;
- production owner simplifications;
- retained false positives and why they remain valuable;
- focused and full proof actually run;
- production versus test LOC;
- PR and merge state;
- named follow-ups.

Attribution

twikustwikus
View sourceSee grades on GitHubMore from twikus →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Related Skills

Caveman Review

Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.

1100021 votes

Caveman Commit

Ultra-compressed commit message generator. Cuts noise from commit messages while preserving intent and reasoning. Conventional Commits format. Subject ≤50 chars, body only when "why" isn't obvious. Use when user says "write a commit", "commit message", "generate commit", "/commit", or invokes /caveman-commit. Auto-triggers when staging changes.

1100021 votes

Springboot Verification

Verification loop for Spring Boot projects: build, static analysis, tests with coverage, security scans, and diff review before release or PR.

2456590 votes

Verification Loop

一个全面的 Claude Code 会话验证系统。

2456590 votes

Django Verification

Verification loop for Django projects: migrations, linting, tests with coverage, security scans, and deployment readiness checks before release or PR.

2456590 votes
View all in code-quality →