test-traps

A set of rules for writing tests that check real application behavior instead of the behavior of test doubles. Test doubles are substitutes such as mocks used to isolate code during testing.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or considering changes to production code solely to make testing easier.
Why use it?
It helps prevent tests that pass only because a mock was set up correctly, test-only methods in production code, and poorly understood dependencies.

Command

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/hamr0/liteagents/test-traps
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/liteagents
Per session 42 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,684 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00042 $0.02684
Opus 5 $0.00021 $0.01342
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00537
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00268

Measured 2d ago against content hash 33bb3baf3bf4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

test-traps scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

packages/ampcode/commands/test-traps.md · 379 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 379 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Test Traps

Overview

Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.

Core principle: Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.

Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.

The Iron Laws

1. NEVER test mock behavior
2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies

Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior

The violation:

// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
test('renders sidebar', () => {
  render(<Page />);
  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
});

Why this is wrong:

  • You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
  • Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
  • Tells you nothing about real behavior

your human partner's correction: "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"

The fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
test('renders sidebar', () => {
  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
});

// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present

Gate Function

BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"

  IF testing mock existence:
    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component

  Test real behavior instead

Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production

The violation:

// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
class Session {
  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
    // ... cleanup
  }
}

// In tests
afterEach(() => session.destroy());

Why this is wrong:

  • Production class polluted with test-only code
  • Dangerous if accidentally called in production
  • Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
  • Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle

Read the full file on GitHub · 379 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 379 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 33bb3baf3bf4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

test-traps is a command published in the GitHub repository hamr0/liteagents (22 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,684 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.