Dev Test Review

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Usage Modes

Important: Use --all at epic completion to catch all issues, not just changes.

Goal

Perform a comprehensive test quality review that answers: Are these tests actually good tests for agentic code?

This is NOT linting. This is semantic analysis of test design:

• Do tests actually test what they claim?
• Is this the right type of test (unit vs VCR vs eval)?
• Could tests pass while the agent misbehaves?
• Are tests maintainable?

Plus agentlint-specific checks:

• Test Type Appropriateness (per ADR-0011)
• VCR Recording Coverage (per ADR-0011)
• Eval Scenario Coverage (per ADR-0012)
• Constitution Compliance

Operating Constraints

STRICTLY READ-ONLY: Do not modify any files. Output analysis and recommendations.

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: Read and understand tests, don't just grep for patterns.

TIERED OUTPUT: Full analysis for problems, brief summary for clean tests.

Constitution Alignment

This skill validates test adherence to project principles:

• III. Causal-First: Tests should trace to requirements
• IV. Mixed-Methods: Quantitative (unit) + qualitative (evals)
• VIII. Compounding Value: Eval baselines enable regression detection
• IX. Agent-Aware: Test types match agent cognitive patterns

Execution Steps

Phase 0: Identify Test Files

You handle this phase directly.

Parse user input to determine mode:

1. If --all flag present: Full codebase audit

   find src -name "*.test.ts" -type f 2>/dev/null
   find tests -name "*.test.ts" -type f 2>/dev/null
   ls tests/evals/**/*.py 2>/dev/null
   

2. If specific file path provided: Review that file

   ls -la <provided-path>
   

3. Default (no args): Changed files only

   git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD
   git diff --name-only main...HEAD | grep -E '\.(test\.ts|\.py)$'
   

Report mode to user:

• --all mode: "Running FULL CODEBASE audit on N test files"
• Specific file: "Reviewing specified file: "
• Default: "Reviewing N test files changed vs main"

If no test files to review in default mode, suggest using --all for full audit.

Output: List of test files to analyze, classified by type:

• Unit: src/**/__tests__/*.test.ts or tests/unit/**/*.test.ts
• Integration (VCR): tests/integration/**/*.test.ts
• E2E: tests/e2e/**/*.test.ts
• Evals: tests/evals/**/*.py

Phase 1: Semantic Test Analysis

Invoke test-reviewer agent for each test file (or batch by type).

Task(test-reviewer, "Review the following test file for quality, correctness, and maintainability.

File: [path]

Apply your full analysis framework:
1. For each test, evaluate Purpose, Correctness, Isolation, Maintainability
2. Apply type-specific checks based on test classification
3. Full analysis for tests with issues, brief summary for clean tests

Return your structured analysis.")

Wait for test-reviewer to return.

Phase 2: Agentic Testing Analysis (Parallel)

Invoke agentlint-specific agents IN PARALLEL (single message, multiple Task calls):

Task(test-type-reviewer, "Analyze test type appropriateness per ADR-0011.

For each test file, determine:
1. What is being tested? (deterministic logic, LLM API call, behavioral quality)
2. What test type is used? (unit, VCR integration, TruLens eval)
3. Is this the RIGHT type per ADR-0011 decision framework?

Flag these RED FLAGS:
- Unit tests asserting on LLM response content
- Unit tests checking agent decision quality
- Missing VCR recordings for LLM API calls
- Missing evals for behavioral quality scenarios

Changed files: [list]
Return your Test Type Appropriateness Report.")

Task(vcr-coverage-reviewer, "Analyze VCR recording coverage per ADR-0011.

For integration tests, check:
1. Does each test that calls LLM APIs have a corresponding recording?
2. Are recordings in tests/integration/recordings/?
3. Do recordings look fresh (not stale prompts)?
4. Is strict mode enforced in CI?

Changed files: [list]
Return your VCR Coverage Report.")

Task(eval-coverage-reviewer, "Analyze eval scenario coverage per ADR-0012.

For code that involves agent behavior, check:
1. Are there corresponding eval scenarios in tests/evals/?
2. Do evals test actionability, causal accuracy, relevance?
3. Are golden dataset scenarios defined?
4. Are thresholds reasonable (≥0.7)?

Focus on:
- Subagent selection decisions
- Recommendation quality
- Reasoning accuracy

Changed files: [list]
Return your Eval Coverage Report.")

Wait for all agents to return.

Phase 3: Strategic Synthesis

You handle this phase directly.

Synthesize all reports into a unified strategic assessment.

Output Format

## Test Quality Review

**Branch**: [branch]
**Files Reviewed**: [N]
**Tests Analyzed**: [N]

---

### Executive Summary

| Aspect | Status | Key Finding |
|--------|--------|-------------|
| Test Design Quality | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [summary from test-reviewer] |
| Test Type Appropriateness | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [summary from test-type-reviewer] |
| VCR Coverage | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [summary from vcr-coverage-reviewer] |
| Eval Coverage | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [summary from eval-coverage-reviewer] |

**Overall**: [One sentence assessment]

---

### Test Design Analysis

[Include test-reviewer findings]

#### Tests Needing Attention

[Full analysis for each problematic test]

#### Clean Tests

[Summary table of tests that passed review]

---

### Agentic Testing Findings

#### Test Type Appropriateness (ADR-0011)

[Key findings from test-type-reviewer]

**Red Flags Found:**
- [ ] Unit tests on LLM content
- [ ] Missing VCR for API calls
- [ ] Missing evals for behavior

#### VCR Recording Coverage

[Key findings from vcr-coverage-reviewer]

| Test File | Recording | Status |
|-----------|-----------|--------|
| ... | ... | ✅/❌ |

#### Eval Scenario Coverage

[Key findings from eval-coverage-reviewer]

| Behavioral Scenario | Eval Exists | Threshold |
|---------------------|-------------|-----------|
| ... | ... | ... |

---

### Priority Actions

| Priority | Issue | Impact | ADR Reference |
|----------|-------|--------|---------------|
| P0 | [Must fix] | High | ADR-0011/0012 |
| P1 | [Should fix] | Medium | ... |
| P2 | [Consider] | Low | ... |

---

### Recommendations

1. **Immediate** (this PR):
   - [Specific action with file:line]

2. **Follow-up** (next PR):
   - [Action item]

---

### Next Steps

- [ ] Address P0 issues
- [ ] Re-run `/dev.test-review` to verify
- [ ] Proceed to PR when clean

What This Review Checks

From test-reviewer (Semantic Analysis)

• Purpose: Is it clear what's being tested?
• Correctness: Could test pass while code is broken?
• Isolation: Deterministic? Independent?
• Maintainability: Brittle to implementation changes?

From agentlint-specific agents

• Test Type Appropriateness: Right type per ADR-0011?
• VCR Coverage: LLM calls have recordings?
• Eval Coverage: Behavioral scenarios have evals?

What This Review Does NOT Check

• Linting/style: ESLint handles this
• Type safety: TypeScript handles this
• Coverage %: Vitest coverage handles this
• Format: Prettier handles this

Red Flags (Auto-Fail)

These issues MUST be fixed before PR:

Test Type Quick Reference

When to Use

Key Insight: Default mode only reviews changed files. Use --all at epic completion to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Handoff

After completing this skill:

• Fix issues: Address P0/P1 issues identified
• Check integration: Run /dev.integration-check before PR
• Create PR: Run /dev.pr when tests pass

References

• ADR-0011: Testing Strategy for Agentic Components
• ADR-0012: Evaluation Framework for Analysis Quality
• dev.testing: Test type selection guidance
• Constitution: Project principles (especially III, IV, VIII, IX)