olliecrow/battletest

battletest

Multi-agent collaboration

• Default to using subagents when they are likely to improve speed, quality, confidence, or keep the main context clean.
• Use subagents to widen coverage, dig deeper on one thread, get a fresh second opinion, or keep the main thread clean while side work runs.
• Split work into clear packets with owners, inputs, acceptance checks, and a synthesis step when parallelizing.
• Keep the main agent focused on synthesis, unblockers, and the next critical-path step; let subagents handle bounded side work that can run in parallel.
• Use single-agent execution only when scope is small or coordination overhead outweighs gains.

Proactive autonomy and knowledge compounding

• Be proactive: immediately take the next highest-value in-scope action when it is clear.
• Default to autonomous execution: do not pause for confirmation between normal in-scope steps.
• Request user input only when absolutely necessary: ambiguous requirements, material risk tradeoffs, missing required data/access, or destructive/irreversible actions outside policy.
• If blocked by command/tool/env failures, attempt high-confidence fallbacks autonomously before escalating (for example rg -> find/grep, python -> python3, alternate repo-native scripts).
• When the workflow uses plan/, ensure required plan directories exist before reading/writing them (create when edits are allowed; otherwise use an in-memory fallback and call it out).
• Treat transient external failures (network/SSH/remote APIs/timeouts) as retryable by default: run bounded retries with backoff and capture failure evidence before concluding blocked.
• On repeated invocations for the same objective, resume from prior findings/artifacts and prioritize net-new progress over rerunning identical work unless verification requires reruns.
• Drive work to complete outcomes with verification, not partial handoffs.
• Treat iterative execution as the default for non-trivial work; run adaptive loop passes. Example loops (adapt as needed, not rigid): issue-resolution investigate -> plan -> fix -> verify -> battletest -> organise-docs -> git-commit -> re-review; cleanup scan -> prioritize -> clean -> verify -> re-scan; docs audit -> update -> verify -> re-audit.
• Keep looping until actual completion criteria are met: no actionable in-scope items remain, verification is green, and confidence is high.
• Run organise-docs frequently during execution to capture durable decisions and learnings, not only at the end.
• Create small checkpoint commits frequently with git-commit when changes are commit-eligible, checks are green, and repo policy permits commits.
• Never squash commits; always use merge commits when integrating branches.
• Prefer simplification over added complexity: aggressively remove bloat, redundancy, and over-engineering while preserving correctness.
• When you touch code, leave the touched area in a better state than you found it: clearer, simpler, tidier, and at least as performant unless the task requires an explicit trade-off.
• Before finishing any non-trivial task or pass, run at least one explicit consolidation pass across the touched code, docs, notes, tests, and configs.
• Use that pass to merge toward one clear source of truth, remove stale or duplicate material, and resolve contradictions before you declare the work complete.
• Do this by default as part of normal completion, even when the user did not explicitly ask for cleanup, consolidation, or contradiction resolution.
• Use simple, plain English in user messages, docs, notes, reports, code comments, and other explanatory writing. Avoid jargon, fancy wording, and complex phrasing. When a technical term is needed for correctness, explain it in simple words the first time. Default to short user-facing responses. Think about what the user most wants to know, and lead with that. Do not dump every detail by default. Always include important changes, blockers, verification gaps, and any important assumptions, nuances, principles, or decisions that shaped the work. Add more detail only when the user asks for it or when uncertainty or risk makes it necessary.
• Compound knowledge continuously: keep docs/ accurate and up to date, and promote durable learnings and decisions from work into docs.

Long-task checkpoint cadence

• For any non-trivial task (including long efforts), run recurring checkpoint cycles instead of waiting for a single end-of-task wrap-up.
• At each meaningful milestone with commit-eligible changes, and at least once per major phase, invoke git-commit to create a small logical checkpoint commit once relevant checks are green and repo policy permits commits.
• At the same cadence, invoke organise-docs whenever durable learnings/decisions appear, and prune stale plan/ scratch artifacts.
• If either checkpoint is blocked (for example failing checks or low-confidence documentation), resolve or record the blocker immediately and retry before expanding scope.

Terminal state contract (must follow)

The skill is complete only when all of the following are true:

• Objective completion: the user-requested outcome is achieved, or explicitly marked blocked with concrete blocker evidence.
• Workflow completion: every required workflow step is resolved as done, blocked, or not-applicable, with brief evidence or rationale.
• Step-level terminal completion: each numbered subtask must have explicit completion evidence (artifact, command output, or written rationale) before advancing.
• Verification completion: required checks/validations for this skill are executed, or any unavailable checks are explicitly called out with impact.
• Findings completion (where applicable): report only evidence-backed findings; if no high-confidence critical findings are present, explicitly state that.
• Loop completion: no actionable in-scope next step remains under the current objective.

Stop only after this terminal contract is satisfied; otherwise continue iterating.

Terminal state examples (adapt to skill)

• done: requested outcome is delivered and required checks are completed (for example expected artifact/report produced and required validation command(s) passed).
• blocked: progress cannot continue after bounded retries because of a concrete dependency or access issue; blocker evidence and exact unblock action are reported.
• not-applicable: an optional step is explicitly skipped with reason (for example no remote configured, so push step is marked not-applicable).

Overview

Run many test perspectives and configurations, starting small and scaling up, then summarize outcomes, red flags, and next steps. Conduct a deep, thorough validation that maps coverage to all relevant changes and decisions, and reason through the results.

Prefer empirical testing with real data and real runs when relevant. Avoid mock or stub data unless there is no alternative; if you must use non-real data, explain why and what risk it introduces.

Behavioral guardrails (must follow)

• Proceed without permission for standard in-scope steps (read/scan/summarize/plan/tests/edits/analysis). Ask clarifying questions only when requirements are ambiguous, missing inputs, or a risky decision cannot be inferred. Require explicit approval only for destructive/irreversible actions, executing untrusted code or installers, remote-state changes (push/deploy/publish), or changes outside the repo environment.
• Run a preflight before substantial work: confirm the expected cwd, verify required tools with command -v, and verify referenced files/directories exist before reading or searching them.
• State assumptions about scope and coverage; if multiple interpretations exist, surface them.
• Prefer the simplest tests that meaningfully increase confidence before scaling up.
• Avoid unrelated code changes; keep any fixes or test additions strictly in scope, but leave the touched area tidier when a small safe improvement is obvious.
• Define success criteria and map each to a test or check.
• Prefer quality over quantity in issue reporting: include only evidence-backed findings and explicitly report when no critical red flags are found.
• Prefer quoted paths and explicit path checks when running shell commands to reduce avoidable glob/path failures.
• If an environment variable is required, check whether it is already set before asking for it or stating it is missing.
• If there is nothing left to do, say so explicitly and stop.

Decision framing

When a decision is required, always provide:

• Background context sufficient to make the decision.
• Pros and cons for each viable option.
• Your recommendation and the reasoning behind it. If no decision is required, say so explicitly and continue.

Rationale capture

When you fix an issue, make a change that resolves an issue, or reach an important decision, capture the "why" in a durable place (code comments, docs, ADR, or tests). Do not rely only on plan/ scratch notes. In your summary, mention where the rationale was recorded.

Plan/docs/decisions robustness

• Treat plan/ as short-term scratch and never commit it.
• If plan/ is missing, create it (and any needed subdirs) only when edits are permitted; otherwise keep a lightweight in-memory log and state in the report that plan logging was not persisted.
• Treat docs/ as long-lived, evergreen guidance; prefer updating existing docs when they have a clear home, but create new focused docs/subdirectories when it improves navigability (and link them from related docs or indexes).
• If docs/decisions.md is missing, prefer using the setup skill to create it when allowed. If you cannot create docs, capture rationale in the smallest durable local place (code comments or tests) and call out the missing decision doc in the report.

Workflow

1. Establish baseline:

• Identify the change scope.
• Ensure coverage maps to every relevant change, assumption, and risk area; do not leave gaps.
• Run preflight checks first (pwd, required tools, path existence, and test entrypoints).
• Run fast, small checks first (lint, unit tests, targeted suites).
  • Prefer uv run pytest over bare pytest unless the repo explicitly uses another test runner flow.
  • For long-running checks, use explicit timeouts and capture logs to a temporary artifact path for later review.
  • Treat "no tests collected" as a coverage signal that requires adjustment, not as a pass.
  • Proactively create and run small, isolated experiments or standalone tests when useful.
  • Stop early if basics fail; fix before scaling up.
  • After any fixes or changes, rerun the fast checks to confirm no regressions.
  • Remove ad-hoc experiments that are no longer needed; keep only those that revealed issues and should be preserved.
  • Use a plan/ directory as scratch space (create it if missing and edits are permitted); keep it untracked and never commit it. If you cannot create it, keep a lightweight in-memory log and call it out in the report.
  • For large or long tasks, heavy use of the plan/ scratchpad is strongly recommended; it is for agent use (not human) and can be used however is most useful.

2. Expand test coverage:

   • Vary configs (feature flags, env vars, build modes).
   • Vary environments (OS, versions, dependencies) when feasible.
   • Vary perspectives (unit, integration, e2e, performance, security, UX, accessibility, API contract, data migration).
   • Prefer production-like configurations and real datasets when feasible; document data sources and constraints.
   • Prefer smaller probes before long-running suites, but still run large tests when warranted.
   • If any code changes are made during testing, rerun relevant probes and suites (small before large) to confirm no regressions.
   • Maintain a lightweight test matrix of configs/environments/perspectives already covered to avoid repeats.

3. Be proactive:

   • Keep exploring reasonable new angles and edge cases.
   • Create new investigations without extra prompting.
   • On repeated passes, prioritize net-new high-value coverage and avoid repeating the same tests unless regression confirmation requires it.
   • Treat contradictory behavior, duplicate test paths, or conflicting docs/config guidance surfaced during testing as active failures until they are resolved or explicitly scoped.

4. Summarize results:

   • List tests/checks executed.
   • Provide conclusions and confidence level.
   • Call out critical red flags or issues.
   • If no evidence-backed critical red flags are found, state that explicitly.
   • Confirm whether any changes during testing introduced regressions in functionality or performance.
   • Track and append to the running list of known issues if re-invoked.
   • Note obvious next steps or follow-up investigations only when they matter now.
   • Use the shortest report that still tells the user what was tested, what passed or failed, and how confident the result is.
   • Write the summary in plain, concise, and intuitive language with brief context so a new reader can follow it.
   • Avoid analogies; use simple, direct explanations and define any necessary technical terms.

5. Repeat passes until complete:

   • Re-enter Steps 1-4 until no material untested risk areas remain and confidence is high.
   • If testing reveals issues, route through an issue-resolution loop (investigate -> plan -> fix -> verify -> battletest -> organise-docs -> git-commit -> re-review) before declaring completion.
   • Before the final report, run one consolidation sweep over any touched tests, helpers, docs, and configs so the battletest pass leaves one clear path forward instead of parallel leftovers.

Skill composition

When this skill is triggered, compose other skills as needed:

• Use verify for fast targeted checks before broadening into wider battletest coverage.
• Use investigate when a battletest failure is unclear, surprising, or points to a deeper behavioral issue.
• Use plan when repeated battletest findings indicate that a broader fix sequence or validation matrix should be formalized.
• Use organise-docs when battletesting surfaces durable failure modes, operating limits, or validation guidance worth preserving.
• Use git-commit or checkpoint once fixes are validated and the battletest pass has materially improved confidence.

If there is a conflict, battletest breadth wins only after targeted proof is in place: do not use broad coverage as a substitute for understanding obvious failing basics first.