PREREQUISITE: Read the methodology reference before writing any test:
${SKILL_DIR}/references/methodology.md— 5-stage router, 5 factors, 7 exceptions, test double taxonomy
Then follow the spec-tree workflow below.
Step 1: Load tree context
Check for <SPEC_TREE_FOUNDATION> and <SPEC_TREE_CONTEXT> markers. If absent, invoke /understanding and /contextualizing first.
This loads:
- The target spec node and its assertions
- Ancestor ADRs/PDRs that constrain the testing approach
- Lower-index sibling specs that provide context
Step 2: Extract assertions from the spec
Parse the target spec node. Extract all typed assertions and their test links:
| Type | Pattern in spec | Test strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario | Given ... when ... then ... ([test](...)) |
Example-based |
| Mapping | {input} maps to {output} ([test](...)) |
Parameterized |
| Conformance | {output} conforms to {standard} ([test](...)) |
Tool validation |
| Property | {invariant} holds for all {domain} ([test](...)) |
Property-based |
| Compliance | ALWAYS/NEVER: {rule} ([review]/[test](...)) |
Review or test |
Record each assertion with:
- Assertion text
- Assertion type
- Test link (if present) — path and whether it resolves
- Test link status: exists / missing / stale
Step 3: Analyze evidence gaps
For each assertion:
| Status | Condition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Covered | Test link exists and resolves to a file | Verify in Step 4 |
| Missing link | No ([test](...)) in the assertion |
Must add test link |
| Broken link | Link present but file doesn't exist | Must create test file |
| No assertions | Spec has no typed assertions | Spec needs work first — do not write tests |
Report the evidence gap summary before proceeding.
Step 4: Route each assertion through the methodology
For each assertion that needs a test, apply the 5-stage router from ${SKILL_DIR}/references/methodology.md:
- Stage 1 — What evidence does this assertion demand?
- Stage 2 — At what level does that evidence live? (Use 5 factors. Respect ADRs/PDRs loaded from tree context.)
- Stages 3–5 — If Level 1: classify the code, check real system viability, match exception if needed.
Document the routing decision for each assertion.
Step 5: Generate test scaffolds
For each assertion needing a new test:
- Determine test pattern from assertion type (Step 2 table).
- Determine test level from methodology routing (Step 4).
- Create test file in the spec node's
tests/directory. - Name the file using level suffix:
test_{slug}_unit.py,test_{slug}_integration.py, etc. - Scaffold the test structure based on assertion type and language-specific patterns.
Delegate language-specific patterns to /testing-python or /testing-typescript.
Specified nodes: If the implementation module doesn't exist yet, test files will fail on import. This is expected — the test is a declaration of what the implementation must satisfy. Add the node's path to spx/EXCLUDE and run the project's sync command so the quality gate excludes these tests. Remove the entry when implementation begins. See ${SKILL_DIR}/../understanding/references/excluded-nodes.md.
Step 6: Update spec assertion links
After creating test files, update the spec to add ([test](tests/{filename})) links for each new assertion-test pair. Every assertion must link to at least one test file.
Step 7: Report evidence summary
Report which assertions have tests, which don't, which are stale:
| # | Assertion | Type | Level | Test File | Status |
| - | --------- | -------- | ----- | --------- | ------- |
| 1 | {text} | Scenario | 1 | {file} | Covered |
| 2 | {text} | Property | 1 | — | Missing |
When an assertion lives in an ancestor node (cross-cutting), determine where the test evidence should go:
- If the assertion is about behavior that a specific child node implements, the test belongs in that child's
tests/directory. - If the assertion spans multiple children, the test belongs in the ancestor's
tests/directory at a higher level. - If an ancestor accumulates too many cross-cutting assertions, flag it — the tree may need an extracted shared enabler at a lower index.
Testing is complete when:
- Tree context loaded (foundation markers present)
- All assertions extracted from spec with types identified
- Evidence gaps analyzed and reported
- Each assertion routed through 5-stage methodology
- Test scaffolds created for missing assertions
- Spec assertion links updated to point to test files
- Evidence summary reported
- No test doubles without matching exception case (documented in comments)
- Property-based tests present for parsers, serializers, math operations, complex algorithms