testing-pyramid-agent

A guide for examining how a project’s tests are divided between unit, integration, and end-to-end tests. Unit tests check small pieces, integration tests check connected parts, and end-to-end tests check a complete user flow.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when reviewing test strategy or distribution. It identifies the test framework, lists test files, classifies them from their locations and contents, and checks patterns such as arrange-act-assert and test independence.
Why use it?
It helps reveal an unbalanced test suite and gives recommendations for improving coverage and test quality. The suggested early-project distribution is 70% unit, 20% integration, and 10% end-to-end tests.

Cursor rule for Cursor

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 rules/usrrname/cursorrules/testing-pyramid-agent
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/usrrname/cursorrules

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 0 Nothing until a file matches its globs; then the whole rule loads.
When invoked 2,198 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 $0.00000 $0.02198
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.01099
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00440
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00220

Measured yesterday against content hash 197e83688a46, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

testing-pyramid-agent 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 yesterday.

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.

.cursor/rules/test/testing-pyramid-agent.mdc · 291 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 291 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

actions:

  • type: suggest message: | To analyze test distribution, first identify the test framework and check for coverage commands:

    1. Check package.json for test framework dependencies (jest, vitest, playwright, cypress, mocha)
    2. Look for coverage scripts in package.json scripts section (test:coverage, coverage, etc.)
    3. Use the framework's list command to identify test files:
      • Jest: npx jest --listTests
      • Vitest: npx vitest list
      • Playwright: npx playwright test --list
      • Cypress: Check cypress.config.js for test patterns

    Then classify tests by:

    • File path (e2e/, integration/, unit/)
    • Content keywords (mock, playwright, cypress, database, etc.)
    • Test framework indicators

    Target distribution: 70% unit, 20% integration, 10% E2E

examples:

  • description: "Unit Test Example" input: | // Bad: Testing multiple units together test('process user data', () => { const result = processUserData(validateUser(createUser(data))); expect(result).toBe(expected); }); output: | // Good: Testing single unit with clear arrangement describe('User Processing', () => { it('should process valid user data correctly', () => { // Arrange const mockUser = createMockUser();

      // Act
      const result = processUserData(mockUser);
    
      // Assert
      expect(result).toEqual(expected);
    });
    

    });

  • description: "Integration Test Example" input: | // Bad: Testing everything in one E2E test test('user workflow', async () => { await createUser(); await loginUser(); await updateProfile(); await deleteUser(); }); output: | // Good: Focused integration test describe('User Authentication Integration', () => { it('should successfully authenticate valid user', async () => { // Arrange const user = await createTestUser();

      // Act
      const result = await authService.authenticate(user.credentials);
    
      // Assert
      expect(result.authenticated).toBe(true);
    });
    

    });

  • description: "E2E Test Example" input: | // Bad: Testing minor features end-to-end test('user can change avatar', async () => { await page.goto('/profile'); await page.click('#avatar'); await page.upload('#file-input', 'test.jpg'); await expect(page.locator('#avatar')).toHaveAttribute('src', /test/); }); output: | // Good: E2E test for critical user journey describe('Critical User Journey', () => { it('should allow user to complete checkout process', async () => { // Arrange await loginAsTestUser(); // Act await navigateToProducts(); await addItemToCart(); await proceedToCheckout(); await fillShippingDetails(); await completePayment();

      // Assert
      await expect(page.locator('#order-confirmation')).toBeVisible();
    });
    

    });

tests:

  • input: | // Single test file with no structure test('it works', () => { expect(true).toBe(true); }); output: | describe('Feature Module', () => { describe('Unit Tests', () => { it('should handle valid input correctly', () => { // Arrange const input = validTestData(); // Act const result = processInput(input);

        // Assert
        expect(result).toBe(expected);
      });
    });
    
    describe('Integration Tests', () => {
      it('should integrate with dependent service', async () => {
        // Arrange
        const service = new DependentService();
    
        // Act
        const result = await service.process();
    
        // Assert
        expect(result).toMatchExpectedIntegration();
      });
    });
    

    });

metadata: priority: high version: 1.0

Testing Pyramid Analysis

This rule provides guidance on the testing pyramid principle and how to analyze test distribution in your repository.

Read the full file on GitHub · 291 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. yesterday First seen · 291 lines · 2,198 tokens per session scan A 197e83688a46

Subscribe to this mod's changes

testing-pyramid-agent is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository usrrname/cursorrules (10 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed ISC. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,198 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 2026-08-31.