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.
npx agentmods add rules/golid-ai/golid/write-tests-planninggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/golid-ai/golidWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/rules/golid-ai/golid/write-tests-planning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/golid-ai/golid/write-tests-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/golid-ai/golid/write-tests-planning.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01407 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00704 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00281 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00141 |
Grade A, and why
write-tests-planning 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 5d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Backend Test Planning
Thesis: Derive test plans from predicates and discriminators before writing code — don't invent coverage after the fact.
Discriminator-Column Test Matrix
When a column branches behavior at runtime, every write path that touches the table needs a test for each value of the discriminator, not just the value the implementer happened to remember.
Common discriminators in this codebase: status, user_type, role, category, type.
The rule:
If column
Xchanges which branch executes, then for every functionFthat writes to the table, there must be a test for each value ofXthatFcan encounter.
Worked example. A table with status ∈ {open, closed} and two write paths that branch on status needs four cells covered when both paths touch both statuses — not two happy-path tests for the value the implementer remembered first.
When to apply:
- Any column with a CHECK constraint that varies behavior
- Any column the service
switches on (statuscontrols which transitions are legal) - Any column the handler reads to pick a code path (
tiercontrols feature access)
When NOT to apply:
- Columns that only affect display (no behavior fork)
- Columns with one-way transitions where prior states are tested by inheritance (e.g.,
pending → active → archived— testingarchivedimplicitly exercisedactive)
Catch this in code review: when a PR adds or modifies a discriminator column, scan every service method that writes to the table. If a branch isn't covered by a test, the PR isn't done.
Test Plan from Predicate
When you write a predicate with multiple terms, the test plan derives mechanically from it. Don't invent the plan — read it off the code.
| Predicate shape | Required tests |
|---|---|
WHERE x IN ('a', 'b', 'c') |
One test per value. |
WHERE x = 'a' AND status = 'active' |
x match + active, x match + inactive, x miss. |
if a || b || c { ... } |
One test per disjunct hitting the branch. |
switch v { case A: ... case B: ... default: ... } |
One per case + default. |
errors.As(err, &x) && x.Code == "23505" |
Bare 23505, wrapped 23505 (fmt.Errorf("...: %w", ...)), other pg code, non-pg error. |
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 101 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e3869d6ef4b2
write-tests-planning is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository golid-ai/golid (40 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,407 tokens. 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.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
adapter-features
Database-specific features must be implemented in the specialized adapter only. Base adapters (postgres, mysql, etc.) must remain database-agnostic.
unit-tests-tdd
TDD required for behavior changes; ≥80% package coverage on touched packages; unit-test conventions.
integration-tests
Human-readable integration test requests; helpers vs httptest; suites/ vs per-DB placement.
state-management
Use the following stack. Do not introduce or recommend Redux or React Context for shared/global state.
backend
You are an expert in Go, Gin, Gorm, Gen, Cosy (https://cosy.uozi.org/) with a deep understanding of best practices and performance optimization techniques in these technologies.
core
Core token-efficiency and response discipline rules. Always active.