Test audit
SkillCloud & infraLets your agent check, review, and clean up tests in the eve repo so only valuable tests get written.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
Then ask your AI: use the Test audit skill
About this skill
Invoke whenever writing, changing, reviewing, or sweeping tests in the eve repository. Authoring gate for new tests plus audit workflow for low-value, slow, implementation-coupled, or duplicative tests and the test-only production seams they demand.
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by vercel/eve in .agents/skills/test-audit/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Adapted from the OpenClaw
test-audit
skill for eve's test tiers and tooling.
Three modes, one value bar. Authoring mode gates every new or changed test at write time. Audit mode runs focused sweeps of tests that re-assert source, duplicate stronger proof, couple behavior to implementation, or keep test-only production seams alive. Continue broad audits as separate coherent follow-up PRs; optimize for confidence, not deletion count. Campaign mode prunes one whole subsystem's test surface (every test file one core area or package owns); before starting one, read CAMPAIGN.md.
Read the root AGENTS.md testing section first. It
defines eve's four tiers (unit, integration, scenario, e2e); a test belongs in
the tightest tier that can express its assertion.
Authoring gate
Before adding any test, answer four questions; a missing answer means do not add it yet:
- What observable behavior, invariant, or independent contract does it protect?
- What credible regression makes it fail?
- Why does existing coverage not already catch that failure? Each contract has one primary test owner at the strongest boundary; another layer needs its own distinct risk, such as a transport or lifecycle failure the owner cannot reach. Prefer extending a table-driven case or shared fixture over a near-duplicate test; consolidate duplicated setup in the same change.
- Does it need a production seam (export, flag, wrapper, injection hook) that no production caller needs? If yes, move the test to the real boundary instead.
Then check the test against every junk pattern; a match fails the gate unless the retention bar names the contract it independently guards. A test that would break under behavior-preserving refactoring is asserting implementation, not behavior; rewrite it at the owning boundary before landing it.
Also check its cost. A scenario test that boots a dev server, installs a
tarball, or runs a real build must need that subprocess, port, or bundler. If
it only needs import "eve" to resolve or an in-memory runtime, it belongs in
integration (useTemporaryAppRoots, createTestRuntime). A test that waits
out a real production timeout or backoff should use fake timers or an existing
public option instead of wall-clock time; do not add a test-only seam to
shorten it.
Bug regression tests must fail on the pre-fix code for the intended reason and pass after the owner-boundary repair. A regression test that never demonstrably failed proves the mock, not the fix. One regression at the owner boundary covers the bug; do not replay the same scenario at every layer it crosses.
Junk patterns
The shared checklist for both modes: the authoring gate rejects a new test that matches one, and audits hunt for existing tests that do.
- assertion-free coverage probes;
- self-comparisons and identity copiers;
- copied fixtures, inventories, manifests, or export lists;
- exact source, import, or string greps;
- private predicate or call-shape tests duplicated at real boundaries;
- duplicate invocations of the same contract, including the same scenario replayed across several dev-server or build suites;
- provider-local replays of shared helpers;
- tests whose only purpose is preserving test-only exports, globals, or wrappers;
- dead production code whose only callers are tests;
- expected values produced by the helper or renderer under test;
- mocks that implement the asserted behavior, or one identical mock standing in for different APIs;
- fixtures that supply the receipt, admission, or callback ordering the owner should produce, or persistence asserted against a store the path never writes;
- capability tests that restate declared flags instead of exercising the delivery or acknowledgement the flag promises;
- negative controls that pass for an unrelated reason, such as a denial from a different guard or a rejection the production path never reaches;
- names or fixtures that promise more than the input exercises, such as a "terminates the child" test asserting only that the child never completed;
- parameter matrices whose rows exercise the same code path;
- suites gated on env flags or platforms that no CI job ever sets.
Value bar
Tests justify their maintenance cost by protecting behavior, a credible regression, or an independently meaningful contract. In an audit, an existing test that must change for behavior-preserving source reorganization is suspect, not automatically deletable; the authoring gate still rejects new ones.
Before judging a candidate, read the complete test and production owner, its
entry point, callers, callees, sibling implementations, overlapping tests, CI
routing (.github/workflows/), and relevant history. Read root and scoped
AGENTS.md files first. When the test claims dependency-backed behavior,
inspect the dependency source or types directly.
Discovery
Keep discovery read-only and report evidence before editing. Baseline with the JSON reporter so slow files and tests are visible:
pnpm --filter eve exec vitest run --config vitest.<tier>.config.ts \
--reporter=json --outputFile=/tmp/<tier>.json
For broad scope, run parallel discovery lanes when available, split along production owner boundaries:
- core unit tests (
packages/eve/src/{execution,harness,runtime,compiler,...}); - CLI, setup, evals, tracing, and instrumentation;
- public API, client, channels, and
src/internal; - integration tier (
*.integration.test.ts); - scenario tier (
*.scenario.test.ts,packages/eve/test/scenarios/); - other packages and apps (
packages/eve-code,packages/eve-catalog,apps/docs,e2e/); - a cross-cutting pattern, test-only-export, and console-noise sweep.
Outside campaign mode, prefer a few high-confidence candidates over a large speculative inventory. Hunt for the junk patterns.
Retention bar
Keep a test when it independently enforces a public API (eve/* exports),
protocol, config, migration, storage, security, platform, default, prompt-byte,
package, release, or architecture contract. Also keep:
- call ordering when order is observable behavior;
- regressions with a credible failure mode;
- source inspection when it is the cheapest independent guard: it fails when the contract changes (the user-facing key, byte, or path) and survives an identifier-only refactor;
- a retained test that fails on the baseline: treat it as a possible product bug, reproduce it, and repair the owner rather than deleting it.
Static or slow is not a deletion reason on its own. A slow test with a unique contract gets cheaper (shared boot, fake timers, lower tier), not deleted. A test that resembles implementation may still be the independent contract; prove otherwise before removing it.
Candidate evidence
Record every field below before editing. A missing field means the candidate is not ready for deletion:
- exact test name and location;
- what failure it can actually detect;
- non-test callers of the covered production or support seam;
- stronger remaining owner-boundary proof, or why no proof is needed;
- relevant history and the reason the test or seam exists;
- production or test-support deletion unlocked;
- risk, the focused validation command, and time saved when relevant.
Edit shape
Choose one coherent owner-boundary batch. Delete obsolete test-only exports, globals, wrappers, and dead production paths instead of preserving aliases. Move retained regressions to their canonical owners. Consolidate repeated package or dependency assertions into one generic contract.
Prefer net-negative production LOC. Do not add replacement tests that restate
the same implementation, and do not convert uncertain candidates into cleanup
to increase deletion counts. Do not commit fixture trees under
packages/eve/test/fixtures/; scenario apps stay inline descriptors.
Validation
Never edit source or tests while Vitest is running in the checkout.
- Run the smallest owner and sibling tests with the tier config, never bare
vitest run:pnpm --filter eve exec vitest run --config vitest.<tier>.config.ts <path>. Runpnpm --filter eve build:compiledfirst if#compiled/*changed, andpnpm buildbefore scenario runs. - For removed source greps or invariant assertions, run the script that owns
the real contract, such as
pnpm guard:invariants. - Run
pnpm fmt,pnpm lint,pnpm typecheck, thengit diff --check. - When deleted tests were the only callers of production code,
pnpm typecheckandpnpm lintare the proof that nothing else depended on it. - Inspect
git diff --numstat; report production/tooling separately from tests and test support. Report before and after tier timings for speed work. - Follow the root
AGENTS.mdchangeset rule. Test-only changes need none; removing dead production code frompackages/evestill needs one.
Landing and continuation
Commit, push, open a PR, or land only when authorized. Sign off every commit
(git commit -s) and use the
gh-pr-description skill. Land one coherent
PR at a time; after landing, refresh from current main and rerun read-only
discovery for the next high-confidence batch.
Handoff
Report:
- root cause and removed low-value categories;
- production owner simplifications;
- retained false positives and why they remain valuable;
- focused and full proof actually run, with tier timings;
- production versus test LOC;
- PR and merge state;
- named follow-ups.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 5k
- Forks
- 589
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
test-audit-vercel- Source
- github.com/vercel/eve