/shipyard-testing
Guides test design with AAA structure, DAMP naming, mock boundaries, and the testing pyramid. Use when writing tests, structuring test suites, choosing test boundaries, or fixing test quality issues such as flakiness, over-mocking, or brittle tests. Also use when choosing
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testing -a windsurf -y
SKILL.md
shipyard-testing.SKILL.mdname: shipyard-testing
description: Guides test design with AAA structure, DAMP naming, mock boundaries, and the testing pyramid. Use when writing tests, structuring test suites, choosing test boundaries, or fixing test quality issues such as flakiness, over-mocking, or brittle tests. Also use when choosing between unit, integration, and E2E tests, when tests break during refactoring (a sign of testing implementation details), or when test setup exceeds 20 lines.
<!-- TOKEN BUDGET: 400 lines / ~1200 tokens -->
Writing Effective Tests
<activation>
When This Skill Activates
- Writing or modifying test files (`*.test.*`, `*.spec.*`, `*_test.go`, `test_*.py`)
- Setting up test infrastructure or test utilities
- Debugging flaky, brittle, or slow tests
- Deciding between unit, integration, and E2E tests
- Choosing when and how to use mocks, stubs, or fakes
Natural Language Triggers
- "add tests", "test coverage", "testing strategy", "write tests for", "how should I test"
</activation>
Overview
Test behaviors through public APIs. Verify state, not interactions.
**Core principle:** If refactoring breaks your tests but not your users, your tests are wrong.
**Relationship to TDD:** The `shipyard:shipyard-tdd` skill covers WHEN to write tests (test-first, red-green-refactor). This skill covers HOW to write tests that are effective, maintainable, and trustworthy.
The Iron Law
TEST BEHAVIORS, NOT IMPLEMENTATIONS
A test should break only when the system's observable behavior changes -- never because of refactoring, renaming internals, or restructuring code.
**No exceptions:**
- Don't test private methods
- Don't assert on internal state
- Don't verify method call sequences
- Don't couple tests to data structures users never see
<instructions>
Test Structure (AAA)
Every test follows Arrange-Act-Assert:
Arrange -- Set up preconditions and inputs
Act -- Execute the behavior under test
Assert -- Verify the expected outcome
Separate the three sections with blank lines. One Act per test. One logical assertion per test.
<examples>
<example type="good" title="Clear AAA structure, one behavior per test">
def test_expired_subscription_denies_access():
# Arrange
user = create_user(subscription_end=yesterday())
# Act
result = check_access(user, resource="premium-content")
# Assert
assert result.denied is True
assert result.reason == "subscription expired"Clear name, tests one behavior, obvious structure. </example>
<example type="bad" title="Multiple behaviors, internal state tested">
def test_subscription():
user = create_user(subscription_end=yesterday())
assert check_access(user, "premium-content").denied
user.subscription_end = tomorrow()
assert check_access(user, "premium-content").allowed
assert user.access_log == [("denied", "premium-content"), ("allowed", "premium-content")]Two behaviors in one test, tests internal log, vague name. </example>
</examples>
Keep Tests DAMP, Not DRY
Prefer **Descriptive And Meaningful Phrases** over eliminating duplication. Duplicating setup across tests is fine if it makes each test self-contained and readable. Extract shared setup into helpers only when it improves clarity, not to reduce line count.
No Logic in Tests
Tests are straight-line code. No loops, conditionals, ternaries, or string concatenation. If you need logic, the test is too complex -- split it or simplify the design.
What to Test
Test These
- **Behaviors:** What the system does from a user's perspective
- **Edge cases:** Empty inputs, boundaries, overflow, zero, null
- **Error paths:** Invalid input, missing dependencies, timeouts
- **State transitions:** Before and after an operation
Skip These
- Trivial getters/setters with no logic
- Generated code (protobuf, ORM migrations)
- Configuration files
- Third-party library internals
Test Via Public APIs
Invoke the system the same way its callers do. If the only way to test something is through a private method, the design needs to change -- extract it into a collaborator with its own public interface.
Naming Tests
Name tests after the behavior, not the method.
| Good | Bad | |------|-----| | `rejects_empty_email_with_validation_error` | `test_validate` | | `returns_cached_result_when_within_ttl` | `test_cache` | | `retries_three_times_before_failing` | `test_retry_logic` | | `grants_access_when_subscription_active` | `test_check_access_method` |
Patterns that work:
- `[action]_[condition]_[expected_result]`
- `should [expected behavior] when [condition]`
- Plain descriptive sentence
A test name containing "and" usually means two tests.
Choosing Test Level
digraph test_level {
rankdir=TB;
start [label="What are you testing?", shape=diamond];
pure [label="Pure logic?\nNo I/O, no side effects", shape=diamond];
boundary [label="System boundary?\nDB, API, file, queue", shape=diamond];
journey [label="Critical user journey?\nLogin, checkout, signup", shape=diamond];
unit [label="UNIT TEST\nFast, isolated, many", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
integration [label="INTEGRATION TEST\nBoundary focused, fewer", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffffcc"];
e2e [label="E2E TEST\nFull stack, minimal", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
start -> pure;
pure -> unit [label="yes"];
pure -> boundary [label="no"];
boundary -> integration [label="yes"];
boundary -> journey [label="no"];
journey -> e2e [label="yes"];
journey -> unit [label="no\n(rethink)"];
}**The pyramid:** Many unit tests. Fewer integration tests. Minimal E2E tests.
**Push tests down.** If a behavior can be tested at a lower level, test it there. Lower = faster, more stable, cheaper to maintain. Only go higher when the lower level can't verify the behavior (serialization, wiring, full user flow).
**Duplicate coverag
Read more
name: shipyard-testing description: Guides test design with AAA structure, DAMP naming, mock boundaries, and the testing pyramid. Use when writing tests, structuring test suites, choosing test boundaries, or fixing test quality issues such as flakiness, over-mocking, or brittle tests. Also use when choosing between unit, integration, and E2E tests, when tests break during refactoring (a sign of testing implementation details), or when test setup exceeds 20 lines.
<!-- TOKEN BUDGET: 400 lines / ~1200 tokens -->
Writing Effective Tests
<activation>
When This Skill Activates
- Writing or modifying test files (`*.test.*`, `*.spec.*`, `*_test.go`, `test_*.py`)
- Setting up test infrastructure or test utilities
- Debugging flaky, brittle, or slow tests
- Deciding between unit, integration, and E2E tests
- Choosing when and how to use mocks, stubs, or fakes
Natural Language Triggers
- "add tests", "test coverage", "testing strategy", "write tests for", "how should I test"
</activation>
Overview
Test behaviors through public APIs. Verify state, not interactions.
**Core principle:** If refactoring breaks your tests but not your users, your tests are wrong.
**Relationship to TDD:** The `shipyard:shipyard-tdd` skill covers WHEN to write tests (test-first, red-green-refactor). This skill covers HOW to write tests that are effective, maintainable, and trustworthy.
The Iron Law
TEST BEHAVIORS, NOT IMPLEMENTATIONS
A test should break only when the system's observable behavior changes -- never because of refactoring, renaming internals, or restructuring code.
**No exceptions:**
- Don't test private methods
- Don't assert on internal state
- Don't verify method call sequences
- Don't couple tests to data structures users never see
<instructions>
Test Structure (AAA)
Every test follows Arrange-Act-Assert:
Arrange -- Set up preconditions and inputs Act -- Execute the behavior under test Assert -- Verify the expected outcome
Separate the three sections with blank lines. One Act per test. One logical assertion per test.
<examples>
<example type="good" title="Clear AAA structure, one behavior per test">
def test_expired_subscription_denies_access():
# Arrange
user = create_user(subscription_end=yesterday())
# Act
result = check_access(user, resource="premium-content")
# Assert
assert result.denied is True
assert result.reason == "subscription expired"Clear name, tests one behavior, obvious structure. </example>
<example type="bad" title="Multiple behaviors, internal state tested">
def test_subscription():
user = create_user(subscription_end=yesterday())
assert check_access(user, "premium-content").denied
user.subscription_end = tomorrow()
assert check_access(user, "premium-content").allowed
assert user.access_log == [("denied", "premium-content"), ("allowed", "premium-content")]Two behaviors in one test, tests internal log, vague name. </example>
</examples>
Keep Tests DAMP, Not DRY
Prefer **Descriptive And Meaningful Phrases** over eliminating duplication. Duplicating setup across tests is fine if it makes each test self-contained and readable. Extract shared setup into helpers only when it improves clarity, not to reduce line count.
No Logic in Tests
Tests are straight-line code. No loops, conditionals, ternaries, or string concatenation. If you need logic, the test is too complex -- split it or simplify the design.
What to Test
Test These
- **Behaviors:** What the system does from a user's perspective
- **Edge cases:** Empty inputs, boundaries, overflow, zero, null
- **Error paths:** Invalid input, missing dependencies, timeouts
- **State transitions:** Before and after an operation
Skip These
- Trivial getters/setters with no logic
- Generated code (protobuf, ORM migrations)
- Configuration files
- Third-party library internals
Test Via Public APIs
Invoke the system the same way its callers do. If the only way to test something is through a private method, the design needs to change -- extract it into a collaborator with its own public interface.
Naming Tests
Name tests after the behavior, not the method.
| Good | Bad | |------|-----| | `rejects_empty_email_with_validation_error` | `test_validate` | | `returns_cached_result_when_within_ttl` | `test_cache` | | `retries_three_times_before_failing` | `test_retry_logic` | | `grants_access_when_subscription_active` | `test_check_access_method` |
Patterns that work:
- `[action]_[condition]_[expected_result]`
- `should [expected behavior] when [condition]`
- Plain descriptive sentence
A test name containing "and" usually means two tests.
Choosing Test Level
digraph test_level {
rankdir=TB;
start [label="What are you testing?", shape=diamond];
pure [label="Pure logic?\nNo I/O, no side effects", shape=diamond];
boundary [label="System boundary?\nDB, API, file, queue", shape=diamond];
journey [label="Critical user journey?\nLogin, checkout, signup", shape=diamond];
unit [label="UNIT TEST\nFast, isolated, many", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
integration [label="INTEGRATION TEST\nBoundary focused, fewer", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffffcc"];
e2e [label="E2E TEST\nFull stack, minimal", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
start -> pure;
pure -> unit [label="yes"];
pure -> boundary [label="no"];
boundary -> integration [label="yes"];
boundary -> journey [label="no"];
journey -> e2e [label="yes"];
journey -> unit [label="no\n(rethink)"];
}**The pyramid:** Many unit tests. Fewer integration tests. Minimal E2E tests.
**Push tests down.** If a behavior can be tested at a lower level, test it there. Lower = faster, more stable, cheaper to maintain. Only go higher when the lower level can't verify the behavior (serialization, wiring, full user flow).
**Duplicate coverag
A Claude Code plugin for structured project execution. Plan work in phases, build with parallel agents and TDD, review with security audits and quality gates, and ship with confidence.
Other skills on shipyard.
More skills from other plugins.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or…
ask-matt
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
Questions about shipyard-testing.
- Which coding agents can use shipyard-testing?
- shipyard-testing installs in Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, OpenCode and Windsurf with the skills CLI, using each agent's flag shown on this page. Flowy's auto-invocation, which fires a skill when your prompt matches, runs in Claude Code only.

