MCPInstall

testing-anti-patterns

Use when writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code - prevents testing mock behavior, production pollution with test-only methods, and mocking without understanding dependencies

Installs
88
Last 24h
—
Trending rank
—
Security
Not audited

Install

Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.

npx skills add https://github.com/nickcrew/claude-cortex --skill testing-anti-patterns
  1. 01

    Install

    Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.

  2. 02

    Describe the task

    Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads testing-anti-patterns automatically when relevant.

  3. 03

    Review the result

    The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.

SKILL.md

The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.

Testing Anti-Patterns

Overview

Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.

Core principle: Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.

Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.

The Iron Laws

1. NEVER test mock behavior
2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies

Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior

The violation:

// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
test('renders sidebar', () => {
  render(<Page />);
  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
});

Why this is wrong:

  • You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
  • Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
  • Tells you nothing about real behavior

your human partner's correction: "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"

The fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
test('renders sidebar', () => {
  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
});

// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present

Gate Function

BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"

  IF testing mock existence:
    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component

  Test real behavior instead

Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production

The violation:

// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
class Session {
  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
    // ... cleanup
  }
}

// In tests
afterEach(() => session.destroy());

Why this is wrong:

  • Production class polluted with test-only code
  • Dangerous if accidentally called in production
  • Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
  • Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle

The fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production

// In test-utils/
export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
  if (workspace) {
    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
  }
}

// In tests
afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));

Gate Function

BEFORE adding any method to production class:
  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"

  IF yes:
    STOP - Don't add it
    Put it in test utilities instead

  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"

  IF no:
    STOP - Wrong class for this method

Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding

The violation:

// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
test('detects duplicate server', () => {
  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
  }));

  await addServer(config);
  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
});

Why this is wrong:

  • Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
  • Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
  • Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously

The fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
test('detects duplicate server', () => {
  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup

  await addServer(config);  // Config written
  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
});

Gate Function

BEFORE mocking any method:
  STOP - Don't mock yet

  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"

  IF depends on side effects:
    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
    NOT the high-level method the test depends on

  IF unsure what test depends on:
    Run test with real implementation FIRST
    Observe what actually needs to happen
    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level

  Red flags:
    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain

Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks

The violation:

// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
const mockResponse = {
  status: 'success',
  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
};

// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId

Why this is wrong:

  • Partial mocks hide structural assumptions - You only mocked fields you know about
  • Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include - Silent failures
  • Tests pass but integration fails - Mock incomplete, real API complete
  • False confidence - Test proves nothing about real behavior

The Iron Rule: Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.

The fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
const mockResponse = {
  status: 'success',
  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
  // All fields real API returns
};

Gate Function

BEFORE creating mock responses:
  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"

  Actions:
    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely

  Critical:
    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields

  If uncertain: Include all documented fields

Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought

The violation:

✅ Implementation complete
❌ No tests written
"Ready for testing"

Why this is wrong:

  • Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
  • TDD would have caught this
  • Can't claim complete without tests

The fix:

TDD cycle:
1. Write failing test
2. Implement to pass
3. Refactor
4. THEN claim complete

When Mocks Become Too Complex

Warning signs:

  • Mock setup longer than test logic
  • Mocking everything to make test pass
  • Mocks missing methods real components have
  • Test breaks when mock changes

your human partner's question: "Do we need to be using a mock here?"

Consider: Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks

TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns

Why TDD helps:

  1. Write test first → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
  2. Watch it fail → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
  3. Minimal implementation → No test-only methods creep in
  4. Real dependencies → You see what the test actually needs before mocking

If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.

Quick Reference

Anti-PatternFix
Assert on mock elementsTest real component or unmock it
Test-only methods in productionMove to test utilities
Mock without understandingUnderstand dependencies first, mock minimally
Incomplete mocksMirror real API completely
Tests as afterthoughtTDD - tests first
Over-complex mocksConsider integration tests

Red Flags

  • Assertion checks for *-mock test IDs
  • Methods only called in test files
  • Mock setup is >50% of test
  • Test fails when you remove mock
  • Can't explain why mock is needed
  • Mocking "just to be safe"

The Bottom Line

Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.

If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.

Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.

FAQ

What does the testing-anti-patterns skill do?

Use when writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code - prevents testing mock behavior, production pollution with test-only methods, and mocking without understanding dependencies

How do I install testing-anti-patterns?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/nickcrew/claude-cortex --skill testing-anti-patterns in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/testing-anti-patterns/ (personal) or .claude/skills/testing-anti-patterns/ (project).

Which AI agents can use testing-anti-patterns?

Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.

Is testing-anti-patterns safe to install?

No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.

Who maintains testing-anti-patterns?

It is published by nickcrew in nickcrew/claude-cortex. It has 88 recorded installs.

More from nickcrew/claude-cortex

View all →

react-performance-optimization

nickcrew/claude-cortex

React performance optimization patterns using memoization, code splitting, and efficient rendering strategies. Use when optimizing slow React applications, reducing bundle size, or improving user experience with large datasets.

Frontend & Design1.9K installs

owasp-top-10

nickcrew/claude-cortex

OWASP Top 10 security vulnerabilities with detection and remediation patterns. Use when conducting security audits, implementing secure coding practices, or reviewing code for common security vulnerabilities.

Security758 installs

ui-design-aesthetics

nickcrew/claude-cortex

Generates high-quality, non-generic UI designs with a focus on performance, progressive disclosure, and distinctive aesthetics.

Frontend & Design358 installs

threat-modeling-techniques

nickcrew/claude-cortex

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Security357 installs

token-efficiency

nickcrew/claude-cortex

Compressed communication using symbols and abbreviations. Use when context is limited or brevity is needed.

228 installs

helm-chart-patterns

nickcrew/claude-cortex

Helm chart development patterns for packaging and deploying Kubernetes applications. Use when creating reusable Helm charts, managing multi-environment deployments, or building application catalogs for Kubernetes.

DevOps & Cloud179 installs

Popular testing & qa skills

View category →

tdd

mattpocock/skills

Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.

Testing & QA1.2M installs

grilling

mattpocock/skills

Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.

Testing & QA996.2K installs

migrate-to-shoehorn

mattpocock/skills

Migrate test files from as type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace as in tests, or needs partial test data.

Testing & QA484.1K installs

run-train

lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills

Rigor Train skill for deep learning research repositories. Use when a documented or selected training command should be run conservatively for startup verification, short-run verification, full kickoff, or resume, with command, config, seed, log, checkpoint, status, and metric evidence written to standardized trainoutputs/. Do not use for environment setup, exploratory sweeps, speculative idea implementation, or end-to-end orchestration.

Testing & QA337.8K installs

test-driven-development

obra/superpowers

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Testing & QA261.8K installs

Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work

Testing & QA216.8K installs