review-test-stubs

A review step for checking integration and end-to-end test stubs against recorded requirements and a data model. Test-driven development, or TDD, starts with tests; these are the planned tests before their implementation is reviewed.

In plain words
What is it for?
Check that every building block and quality requirement has a meaningful happy-path test, that external tests match captured responses, and that persistence tests use the modeled data shape.
Why use it?
It finds missing requirements, tests that cover too much or too little, unit tests in the wrong scope, and assertions that could pass even when the feature is not implemented.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

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/nullhack/temple8/review-test-stubs
Any agent
npx skills add nullhack/temple8 --skill review-test-stubs
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nullhack/temple8

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 44 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 659 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 $0.00044 $0.00659
Opus 5 $0.00022 $0.00329
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.00132
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00066

Measured 3d ago against content hash 7eeb4d0058ab, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-test-stubs 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 3d 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.

.opencode/skills/review-test-stubs/SKILL.md · 21 lines

What it actually says

Review Test Stubs

  1. Load [[software-craft/code-review]], [[requirements/domain-decomposition]], [[software-craft/test-design]], [[methodology/simplicity-discipline]] — review method, gap analysis, the vacuous-assertion smells, and the scope-minimal rule.
  2. Treat this review as coverage and scope against requirements, not code quality — quality is gated later on the bodies.
  3. Check consistency: every stub maps to an interview requirement and uses the glossary's ubiquitous language; external-layer stubs match the captured cassettes; persistence-adjacent stubs reference the modeled schema in .cache/<session_id>/data-model.md, not invented shapes.
  4. Check scope: integration and E2E only; IF a unit test leaked in THEN reject it.
  5. Check happy-path completeness: the stub set, once implemented, would exercise the full happy paths of every identified building block. IF a building block or quality attribute maps to no stub THEN flag the gap per [[requirements/domain-decomposition]].
  6. Vacuous-assertion check: for every assertion in every stubbed test, confirm it would fail under a trivial implementation (constant return, empty collection, identity function, return value). A test that cannot fail under a trivial impl tests nothing — route to needs-stubs-rework citing the specific test and the smell. The named smells, per [[software-craft/test-design]]:
    • hasattr-only — asserts an attribute exists, nothing about its value;
    • no-op helper — _to_jsonable(value: object) -> object: return value passes as "JSON-serialisable"; return True, assert True;
    • lower-bound-only — assert x >= 0 against an empty fixture (trivially true);
    • constant-satisfiable — a renderer/format test that a constant-string output would pass;
    • tautology — the assertion derives the expected value from the computation under test. IF any assertion matches a smell THEN reject the stub set with the test and the smell cited; do not defer to simulate-contracts. The gate evidence key vacuous-assertion-free is true only when no stub in the set carries any named smell.
  7. Scope-minimal check (the inverted-traceability mirror of step 5): every test traces to a consolidated finding; any test expressing structure beyond its finding is flagged for rework citing the speculative element. Step 5 asks "is every finding tested?"; this step asks "is every test finding-grounded?". A test that introduces an abstraction, a seam, a configurability, or a building block not grounded in a cited finding is speculative per [[methodology/simplicity-discipline]] — route to needs-stubs-rework with the speculative element named. The gate evidence key scope-minimal is true only when no stub in the set expresses speculative structure.
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. 3d ago First seen · 21 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 7eeb4d0058ab

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-test-stubs is a skill published in the GitHub repository nullhack/temple8 (11 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 659 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.