Files
TORCH/CLAUDE.md
T
google-labs-jules[bot]andPR0M3TH3AN 5d698a8455 feat: establish scenario-first testing standards
- Created `AGENTS.md` and `CLAUDE.md` to define test integrity rules and behavior-based validation.
- Updated `TORCH.md` to include "Scenario-First Tests & Test Integrity" and the "Test Integrity & Scenario Spec Agent" role.
- Updated `src/prompts/daily/test-audit-agent.md` to adopt the new "Enforcer" role, prioritizing test fidelity over CI green state.
- Preserved existing scheduler contract headers in the agent prompt.

Co-authored-by: PR0M3TH3AN <[email protected]>
2026-02-18 18:35:38 +00:00

77 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
## Testing & Validation: Scenario-First, Cheat-Resistant (Dark Factory Rules)
You are operating inside a “Dark Factory” workflow where **validation replaces human code review**. Passing tests is only meaningful if tests are truthful.
### Prime directive
**Never alter a test merely to make it pass.**
If you change tests to match buggy behavior, you are destroying the only feedback signal and producing code with no real-world value.
StrongDM describes the exact failure mode we are preventing: agents discovering shortcuts (“return true”) and narrow tests being reward-hacked, leading to a shift from “tests” to scenario-based validation. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
### How to think about tests here
Tests are not procedural checklists. They are **behavioral specifications**:
- Write tests as **scenarios** (Given/When/Then or equivalent).
- Assert **externally observable outcomes** at boundaries.
- Avoid “testing the implementation” (internal call sequences, private methods, mirrored logic).
- Prefer deterministic/harmonic execution: fixed seeds, controlled clocks, hermetic IO, virtualized dependencies.
### Prohibited behaviors (reward-hacking patterns)
Do NOT:
- weaken assertions, broaden tolerances, or reduce coverage to get green
- update snapshots/goldens without proving the change is intended behavior
- add retries/sleeps/timeouts to hide flakes
- mock so heavily that tests can pass with a broken system
- “hard-code to the test” (single fixtures, single input paths, brittle constants)
### Allowed test changes: Spec Correction Protocol
You may change test expectations only if the test is wrong relative to intended behavior.
Required steps:
1) Identify the scenario/spec that defines correct behavior.
2) Explain why the previous expectation was incorrect.
3) Replace it with an equally strict (or stricter) behavioral assertion.
4) Provide a **Test Integrity Note** (machine-readable) documenting the change.
If you cannot justify a change with scenario/spec truth: **do not change the test**. Instead, output a “Needs Spec Clarification” note and propose candidate scenarios.
### Required output when you touch tests
Include this YAML block in your PR description (or reference it from a `TEST_INTEGRITY.md` entry):
```yaml
test_integrity_note:
change_type: ["new_tests" | "refactor_tests" | "spec_correction" | "flake_fix"]
scenarios:
- id: SCN-<slug>
given: "<preconditions>"
when: "<stimulus>"
then: "<observable outcomes>"
observable_outcomes:
- "<boundary/output asserted>"
determinism_controls:
- "<fixed seed / fake clock / hermetic env / service virtualization>"
anti_cheat_rationale:
prevents:
- "hard-coded return value"
- "over-mocking internal logic"
- "snapshot rubber-stamping"
- "retry/sleep-based flake masking"
relaxation:
did_relax_any_assertion: false
if_true_explain_spec_basis: ""
```
### If external services are involved
Prefer boundary-level service virtualization (“digital twins” / behavioral clones) so scenario tests remain:
* high fidelity (realistic edge cases)
* deterministic and replayable
* not rate-limited / not flaky
(StrongDM’s “Digital Twin Universe” is the reference pattern.) ([factory.strongdm.ai][2])