write-tests

write-tests is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from dzhng/skills. It costs 63 tokens per session (1,727 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A guide for writing tests that check what software does from the user's or caller's point of view, rather than checking internal implementation details. It recommends writing and proving one test at a time.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when adding tests, fixing behavior, reviewing test changes, or updating tests after a refactor. It helps choose meaningful assertions, verify that a test can catch a regression, and run the full suite as a final check.
Why use it?
It reduces brittle tests that fail after harmless refactoring or pass while the real behavior is broken. Focused runs and checking exit codes also make failures easier to interpret.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Part of the skills plugin — 22 skills shipped together

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 skills/dzhng/skills/write-tests
Any agent
npx skills add dzhng/skills --skill write-tests
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dzhng/skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Or install skills, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 22 skills.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for write-tests

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dzhng/skills/write-tests.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/dzhng/skills/write-tests)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dzhng/skills/write-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dzhng/skills/write-tests.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 63 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,727 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 $0.00063 $0.01727
Opus 5 $0.00032 $0.00864
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.00345
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00173

Measured 4d ago against content hash 8c19362fbb8a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

write-tests 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 4d 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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

skills/engineering/write-tests/SKILL.md · 134 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Write Tests

A good test fails only when real behavior breaks, and passes through every refactor or config change that preserves it. Most bad tests fail the opposite way: red on harmless changes, green while the real path is broken. Every rule below serves that one goal.

Workflow: tracer bullets, not a batch

  1. Write ONE test at a time. Assert first, watch it go red on the un-fixed code, make the code earn green, learn, then write the next. Never a batch up front: a batch written against imagined behavior pins what you guessed — those tests pass when the mechanism breaks and fail when it's fine. Each green cycle tells you what the next test should actually assert.
  2. Iterate on the fastest focused runner (one file, one test name), and run the full suite only as a final gate before handing off. Check the exit code, not just the output — a runner that prints nothing and a green run look the same. On failures, read EVERY red test before fixing one; they often share a root cause.
  3. Before calling it done, prove the test can fail (below) and walk the review checklist.

What to assert

  • Observable behavior through the outermost practical entry point — return values, exit codes, persisted rows, HTTP responses, rendered output — never which internal functions ran or how a value is computed. A test on the public surface survives a rewrite of everything underneath; a test that reaches into internals breaks on every refactor and pins implementation, not behavior. Reserve isolated unit tests for genuinely tricky pure logic (parsers, schedulers, state machines).
  • Nothing the compiler already guarantees. A test that re-asserts a type signature — field shapes, rejected argument types — can only fail if the compiler failed first. Spend the budget on business rules, arithmetic, branching, ordering, edge cases, side effects.
  • Actual values, not collection sizes. For dedup/normalize/idempotency paths, length == 1 passes even when normalization is broken; also assert the stored value equals the expected canonical form.
  • The smallest scale that can show the behavior. Two entities and one mechanism before crowds and integration; small tests fail fast with readable state and don't entangle five behaviors in one assert.
  • The design contract, not current behavior. When a test goes red, the reflex is to re-measure and pin the new number — resist it: a bar calibrated to whatever the code currently does silently encodes bugs as baseline. Write the assert from the stated contract and make the code earn it; if no contract exists, that's a question for the owner, not a number to measure-and-pin. Recalibrating is legitimate only when the contract itself changed.
  • Deterministic claims tight, stochastic claims as distributions. An invariant that holds every run gets an exact threshold. Anything noisy or tuning-dependent ("A usually beats B", "load balances evenly") must be asserted over a set of runs/seeds as a band — a single-sample pin on a stochastic outcome is not a weak test, it is a blind one: it certifies whatever the lucky sample did and can mask a systematic bias for months. If you must assert a noisy differential, widen the margin and name it chaos-marginal in a comment.

Read the full file on GitHub · 134 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. 4d ago First seen · 134 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 8c19362fbb8a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

write-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository dzhng/skills (864 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,727 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

brainstorming

You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

obra/superpowers · 37 tokens

auto-perf-optimize

Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.

microsoft/vscode · 62 tokens

chat-perf

Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.

microsoft/vscode · 51 tokens

chat-pet-sprite-creation

Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.

microsoft/vscode · 53 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens