version: "1.0.0" name: testing description: Choose the minimum reliable proof for a change based on risk, reversibility, and impact. metadata: version: "0.1.0" owner: adaptive-skills category: engineering

Overview

Use this skill to calibrate validation. It keeps teams away from both careless closure and ritualized over-testing.

When to Use

• before closing meaningful work
• when fixing a bug
• when changing behavior or a contract

When NOT to Use

• as a generic ceremony disconnected from risk
• to demand exhaustive proof for tiny reversible changes

Core Moves

1. Name what could break.
2. Choose the minimum reliable proof.
3. Run the main-path smoke when relevant.
4. Record what was actually validated.

Optional Modules

• Regression sweep — Check the most likely adjacent failures when the change is broad.
• Automation check — Decide whether the change deserves a lasting automated test.
• Rollback check — Clarify how the change can be reversed if the proof is inconclusive.
• Behavior-first test design — Design tests around public behavior and stable interfaces, not private implementation details. A passing test should describe a capability the system provides, and should survive internal refactoring when behavior is unchanged.
• Vertical test slice — Work in one behavior-sized cycle at a time instead of writing tests horizontally in bulk: define the expected behavior, create the smallest failing proof, implement the smallest passing change, then refactor.

Activation Triggers

• Use the regression sweep when multiple surfaces share the same dependency.
• Use the automation check when the bug or rule is likely to return.
• Use the rollback check when failure cost is material.
• Use behavior-first test design when a test risks coupling to private methods, incidental data shape, or internal collaborator calls.
• Use the vertical test slice when the work tempts you to write many tests at once instead of one behavior per cycle.

Expected Output

• proof strategy
• executed evidence
• known validation gaps

Verification

• The proof matches the risk.
• The main path or failure path was checked intentionally.
• Unvalidated areas are explicit rather than hidden.
• The test can survive internal refactoring as long as behavior stays the same.
• The test fails for the intended behavior gap, not for an incidental detail.
• The test does not rely on private method names, incidental data shape, or internal collaborator calls unless that coupling is explicitly justified.

Handoff Signals

• A specialist needs to validate a different layer.
• The available proof is not enough for the current risk level.

Pairs Well With

• workflow
• debugging
• refactoring

Anti-patterns

• Closing work with no evidence.
• Confusing activity with validation.
• Using “manual tested” as a content-free stamp.