/testing-skills-with-subagents

name: ring:testing-skills-with-subagents
description: "Hardening a skill so it resists rationalization under pressure: run combined-pressure scenarios on a subagent without the skill (RED), capture excuses verbatim, write/edit the skill (GREEN), then plug loopholes (REFACTOR) until compliance holds. Use when deploying or editing a discipline-enforcing skill that an agent could rationalize away. Skip for pure reference skills with no rules to violate."

Testing Skills With Subagents

When to use

• Before deploying a new skill
• After editing an existing skill
• Skill enforces discipline that could be rationalized away

Skip when

• Pure reference skill → no behavior to test
• No rules that agents have incentive to bypass

Related

**Complementary:** ring:writing-skills, ring:test-driven-development

**Testing skills is TDD applied to process documentation.**

Run scenarios without the skill (RED — watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN), then close loopholes (REFACTOR).

**Prerequisite:** Understand `ring:test-driven-development` first. Complete worked example: `examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md`.

When to Test

Test skills that: enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements), have compliance costs (time, effort, rework), could be rationalized away ("just this once"), or contradict immediate goals (speed over quality).

**Skip:** Pure reference skills (API docs), skills without rules to violate.

TDD Mapping

| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do | |-----------|---------------|-------------| | RED | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail | | Verify RED | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim | | GREEN | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures | | Verify GREEN | Pressure test | Run WITH skill, verify compliance under pressure | | REFACTOR | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |

RED Phase: Watch It Fail

Run 3+ combined-pressure scenarios WITHOUT the skill. Document agent choices and rationalizations **word-for-word**.

**Why verbatim?** Exact wording reveals the loopholes to close.

Writing Pressure Scenarios

| Quality | Example | |---------|---------| | Bad | "What does the skill say?" — agent recites | | Good | "Production down, $10k/min, 5min window" — single pressure | | Great | "3hr/200 lines done, 6pm, dinner plans, forgot TDD. A) Delete B) Commit C) Tests now" — multi-pressure + forced choice |

**Pressure types:** Time (deadline), sunk cost (hours invested), authority (senior says skip), economic (job at stake), exhaustion (end of day), pragmatic ("being realistic").

**Best tests combine 3+ pressures.**

GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill

Address the specific failures documented in RED. Don't add hypothetical content — write just enough to address actual observed failures. Re-run same scenarios WITH skill; agent should now comply.

REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes

Agent still violated rule despite having the skill? Capture new rationalizations verbatim:

• "This case is different because..."
• "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
• "Being pragmatic means adapting"

For each rationalization, add: explicit negation rule, rationalization table entry, red flag entry.

**Meta-test:** "You read the skill and chose wrong anyway. How could the skill have been written to make the right answer the only acceptable one?"

**Continue REFACTOR until no new rationalizations appear.**

Signs of Bulletproof Skill

• Agent chooses correct option under maximum pressure
• Agent cites skill sections as justification
• Agent acknowledges temptation but follows rule anyway
• Meta-test reveals "skill was clear, I should follow it"

Real-World Impact

From applying TDD to TDD skill itself:

• 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
• 10+ unique rationalizations discovered
• Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
• Final: 100% compliance under maximum pressure