Use when creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization - applies RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle to process documentation by running baseline without skill, writing to address failures, iterating to close loopholes

Testing Skills With Subagents Test skill provided by user or developed before. Overview Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation. You run scenarios without the skill (RED watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR stay compliant). Core principle: If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures. REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand superpowers:test driven development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED GREEN REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables). Complete worked example: See examples/CLAUDE MD TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants. When to Use Test skills that: Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements) Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework) Could be rationalized away ("just this once") Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality) Don't test: Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides) Skills without rules to violate Skills agents have no incentive to bypass TDD Mapping for Skill Testing TDD Phase Skill Testing What You Do RED Baseline test Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail Verify RED Capture rationalizations Document exact failures verbatim GREEN Write skill Address specific baseline failures Verify GREEN Pressure test Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance REFACTOR Plug holes Find new rationalizations, add counters Stay GREEN Re verify Test again, ensure still compliant Same cycle as code TDD, different test format. RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail) Goal: Run test WITHOUT the skill watch agent fail, document exact failures. This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill. Process: [ ] Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures) [ ] Run WITHOUT skill give agents realistic task with pressures [ ] Document choices and rationalizations word for word [ ] Identify patterns which excuses appear repeatedly? [ ] Note effective pressures which scenarios trigger violations? Example: Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes: "I already manually tested it" "Tests after achieve same goals" "Deleting is wasteful" "Being pragmatic not dogmatic" NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent. GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass) Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases write just enough to address the actual failures you observed. Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply. If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re test. VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing Goal: Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them. Method: Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures. Writing Pressure Scenarios Bad scenario (no pressure): Too academic. Agent just recites the skill. Good scenario (single pressure): Time pressure + authority + consequences. Great scenario (multiple pressures): Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences. Forces explicit choice. Pressure Types Pressure Example Time Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing Sunk cost Hours of work, "waste" to delete Authority Senior says skip it, manager overrides Economic Job, promotion, company survival at stake Exhaustion End of day, already tired, want to go home Social Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible Pragmatic "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" Best tests combine 3+ pressures. Why this works: See persuasion principles.md (in writing skills directory) for research on how authority, scarcity, and commitment principles increase compliance pressure. Key Elements of Good Scenarios 1. Concrete options Force A/B/C choice, not open ended 2. Real constraints Specific times, actual consequences 3. Real file paths /tmp/payment system not "a project" 4. Make agent act "What do you do?" not "What should you do?" 5. No easy outs Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing Testing Setup Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz. REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green) Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression you need to refactor the skill to prevent it. Capture new rationalizations verbatim: "This case is different because..." "I'm following the spirit not the letter" "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently" "Being pragmatic means adapting" "Deleting X hours is wasteful" "Keep as reference while writing tests first" "I already manually tested it" Document every excuse. These become your rationalization table. Plugging Each Hole For each new rationalization, add: 1. Explicit Negation in Rules <Before </Before <After </After 2. Entry in Rationalization Table 3. Red Flag Entry 4. Update description Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate. Re verify After Refactoring Re test same scenarios with updated skill. Agent should now: Choose correct option Cite new sections Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed If agent finds NEW rationalization: Continue REFACTOR cycle. If agent follows rule: Success skill is bulletproof for this scenario. Meta Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working) After agent chooses wrong option, ask: Three possible responses: 1. "The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it" Not documentation problem Need stronger foundational principle Add "Violating letter is violating spirit" 2. "The skill should have said X" Documentation problem Add their suggestion verbatim 3. "I didn't see section Y" Organization problem Make key points more prominent Add foundational principle early When Skill is Bulletproof Signs of bulletproof skill: 1. Agent chooses correct option under maximum pressure 2. Agent cites skill sections as justification 3. Agent acknowledges temptation but follows rule anyway 4. Meta testing reveals "skill was clear, I should follow it" Not bulletproof if: Agent finds new rationalizations Agent argues skill is wrong Agent creates "hybrid approaches" Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing Initial Test (Failed) Iteration 1 Add Counter Iteration 2 Add Foundational Principle Bulletproof achieved. Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills) Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED GREEN REFACTOR: RED Phase: [ ] Created pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures) [ ] Ran scenarios WITHOUT skill (baseline) [ ] Documented agent failures and rationalizations verbatim GREEN Phase: [ ] Wrote skill addressing specific baseline failures [ ] Ran scenarios WITH skill [ ] Agent now complies REFACTOR Phase: [ ] Identified NEW rationalizations from testing [ ] Added explicit counters for each loophole [ ] Updated rationalization table [ ] Updated red flags list [ ] Updated description ith violation symptoms [ ] Re tested agent still complies [ ] Meta tested to verify clarity [ ] Agent follows rule under maximum pressure Common Mistakes (Same as TDD) ❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED) Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing. ✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first. ❌ Not watching test fail properly Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios. ✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate. ❌ Weak test cases (single pressure) Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple. ✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion). ❌ Not capturing exact failures "Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent. ✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim. ❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters) "Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does. ✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization. ❌ Stopping after first pass Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof. ✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations. Quick Reference (TDD Cycle) TDD Phase Skill Testing Success Criteria RED Run scenario without skill Agent fails, document rationalizations Verify RED Capture exact wording Verbatim documentation of failures GREEN Write skill addressing failures Agent now complies with skill Verify GREEN Re test scenarios Agent follows rule under pressure REFACTOR Close loopholes Add counters for new rationalizations Stay GREEN Re verify Agent still complies after refactoring The Bottom Line Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits. If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents. RED GREEN REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED GREEN REFACTOR for code. Real World Impact From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025 10 03): 6 RED GREEN REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure Same process works for any discipline enforcing skill

test-skill