---
name: testing-audit
description: Audit the test suite for coverage gaps, test quality, flaky tests, and strategy alignment. Use when assessing test health before a release, or when tests feel weak, slow, or flaky.
user-invocable: true
---

# Testing Audit

## Core Rule

Distinguish test gaps from test churn. Report missing critical-path coverage and flaky tests separately; never recommend tests beyond reproducibility need.

{{PREAMBLE}}

## When to Use

Invoke with `/testing-audit` when:

- Test suite is unreliable or has frequent flaky tests
- Coverage numbers look good but bugs still slip through
- Planning a testing strategy improvement
- Reviewing test quality after rapid feature development
- Assessing confidence level before a major release

## Default Behavior

When the user asks to audit, scan, review, or "give me a report" for test coverage and quality, produce the full testing-audit report automatically using the Process and Output Format sections below. Do not require the user to specify fields.

Only modify files when the user explicitly requests implement / fix / apply / refactor. By default, this skill is **report-only**.

{{SCOPE_RULES}}

{{CONTEXT_GATHERING}}

## Process

### Phase 1: Inventory (first-pass leads)

This pass produces **candidates**, not findings. Treat counts as leads for deeper inspection in later phases. Do not report Phase 1 raw output as the final result.

Map the current test landscape:

1. **Find test files** — scan for test directories, `*.test.*`, `*.spec.*`, `*_test.*`, `test_*.*`
2. **Identify test framework** — Jest, Vitest, pytest, Go testing, JUnit, etc.
3. **Categorize tests** — unit, integration, e2e, snapshot, contract
4. **Check test config** — coverage thresholds, timeout settings, parallel execution

### Phase 2: Coverage Analysis

Assess what is and isn't tested:

**Structural Coverage**
- Which modules/directories have no tests at all?
- Which critical paths (auth, payment, data mutation) lack tests?
- Are edge cases covered? (empty input, boundary values, error paths)
- Are error/failure paths tested, not just happy paths?

**Meaningful Coverage**
- Do tests assert the right things? (behavior, not implementation)
- Are there tests that always pass? (no real assertions, tautological checks)
- Are there tests that test the framework instead of the application?
- Do integration tests actually test integration? (or are they unit tests with extra setup)

### Phase 3: Test Quality

Evaluate test code quality:

**Readability**
- Are test names descriptive? (describe what, when, and expected outcome)
- Is the Arrange-Act-Assert / Given-When-Then pattern followed?
- Are test utilities and helpers well-organized?

**Reliability**
- **Flaky tests**: tests dependent on timing, external services, or execution order
- **Test interdependence**: tests that fail when run individually but pass in suite (or vice versa)
- **Non-deterministic**: tests using random data, current time, or system state
- **Shared mutable state**: global variables modified across tests without reset

**Maintainability**
- **Over-mocking**: mocking so much that the test doesn't test real behavior
- **Under-mocking**: integration tests that hit real external services without sandboxing
- **Brittle assertions**: asserting exact strings, snapshots of entire objects, or implementation details
- **Test duplication**: same scenario tested multiple times in different files
- **Setup overhead**: tests requiring 50+ lines of setup for simple assertions

### Phase 4: Testing Strategy

Assess the overall testing strategy:

- **Test pyramid balance**: ratio of unit : integration : e2e tests
  - Too many e2e tests = slow, brittle feedback loop
  - Too few integration tests = false confidence from unit tests
- **Missing test types**: no contract tests for APIs, no smoke tests for deployment
- **CI integration**: are tests run on every PR? Is the feedback loop fast enough?
- **Test data management**: how is test data created and cleaned up?

## Output Format

```markdown
# Testing Audit Report

## Test Inventory
| Category | Count | Framework | Status |
|----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Unit     | N     | Jest      | ...    |
| Integration | N  | ...       | ...    |
| E2E      | N     | ...       | ...    |

## Coverage Gaps
### Untested Critical Paths
1. [module/feature] — [risk if untested]

### Weak Test Areas
1. [file:line] — [what's missing]

## Quality Issues
### Must Fix
- [issue + location + recommendation]

### Should Fix
- [issue + location + recommendation]

## Testing Strategy Assessment
- Pyramid balance: [top-heavy / balanced / bottom-heavy]
- Confidence level: [low / medium / high]
- Key risk: [single biggest testing risk]

## Recommendations
1. [Highest impact improvement]
2. ...
```

{{REPORT_FOOTER}}

## Notes

- If no tests exist, the output should focus on a recommended testing strategy rather than auditing
- Don't recommend 100% coverage — focus on critical path coverage
- Consider the project's risk tolerance and deployment frequency when making recommendations