Brooks Test

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

.agents/skills/_shared

.agents/skills/brooks-audit

.agents/skills/brooks-debt

.agents/skills/brooks-health

.agents/skills/brooks-review

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 88b8bd892d5d · 26 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherhyhmrright GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderhyhmrright/brooks-lint/skills/brooks-testThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict88b8bd892d5dA new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 2 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses…

---
name: brooks-test
description: >
  Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus
  on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and
  Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an
  existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow execution,
  poor readability.
  Triggers when: user asks about test quality, shares test files for review, or
  expresses frustration: "tests keep breaking whenever I change anything", "our tests
  take forever", "tests pass but bugs still reach production", or "we have too many mocks".
  Do NOT trigger for: writing new tests from scratch (use the regular test-writing
  workflow) or testing framework/syntax questions — this skill reviews an existing
  suite for structural quality problems, not individual test authoring.
metadata:
  opencode/slash: "true"
---

# Brooks-Lint — Test Quality Review

## Setup

Read in order:

1. `../_shared/common.md` — Iron Law, Project Config, Report Template, Health Score
2. `../_shared/source-coverage.md` — book coverage, exceptions, tradeoffs
3. `../_shared/test-decay-risks.md` — test-space symptom definitions and sources
4. `test-guide.md` (this directory) — the test quality review framework

## Process

**Scope:** if the user did not share test files or point to a test directory, apply Auto
Scope Detection (`../_shared/common.md`) first.

1. Build the test suite map (guide's "Before You Start" section)
2. Scan for each test decay risk in the order specified (Steps 1–4 of the guide)
3. Apply the Iron Law and output using the Report Template (Step 5 of the guide)

**Mode line in report:** `Test Quality Review`

Excerpt, first 1,727 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/hyhmrright/brooks-lint
git -C brooks-lint checkout 88b8bd892d5d

Works in

1. 2026-10-26
   !CAUTION B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 88b8bd892d5d

Questions about Brooks Test

• github.com/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/tree/main/skills/brooks-test — the audited source at commit 88b8bd892d5d and every finding aboveObserved · 26 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology