wolfe-jam/faf-skills/wjttc-tester
Claude Code and agent skill by wolfe-jam/faf-skills
- community
Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.
First checks that a failing test still means a real failure, then runs the plan, reproduces and root-causes each failure, and writes a WJTTC report sorted by severity (Brake, Engine, Aero, Tyre, Pit) with a verdict. Use when someone wants tests run or a bug chased down: "run the tests and tell me what broke", "reproduce this bug", "can I trust our CI?". Runs and reports; wjttc-builder plans and writes the tests.
Install
npx vskill@latest install wolfe-jam/faf-skills/wjttc-testerSKILL.md
<!-- faf:end -->
WJTTC Championship Tester
"We break things so others never have to know they were broken."
Apply championship-grade standards to software testing. When brakes must work, so must the code. This skill executes test plans and files reports — it is the driver, not the engineer. To plan and generate the suite, use wjttc-builder.
When to use this skill
- Running an existing or just-written test plan and reporting outcomes
- Reproducing and root-causing a reported bug
- Edge-case / error-handling / regression validation
- Auditing whether the suite's CI signal can still be trusted
- Producing a WJTTC report with a tier verdict
The WJTTC five tiers
Triage every test by blast radius. The first three set severity; Tyre and Pit cover durability and the release gate.
| Tier | Meaning | Examples | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brake | Life-critical — failure is catastrophic | data loss, auth bypass, payment errors, destructive ops without confirm | |
| Engine | Performance-critical — wrong results / poor UX | API accuracy, data transforms, calculations, format compliance, perf | |
| Aero | Polish & edge cases — minor inconvenience | UI quirks, rare message formatting, optional-feature edges, docs | |
| Tyre | Durability under load — degradation over time | stress/volume, concurrency, memory growth, large inputs | |
| Pit | Release gate — the stop that lets you go | smoke/regression suite, CI green, the WJTTC report filed |
Test Brake first. If the brakes don't work, nothing else matters.
Step 0 — Signal Integrity pre-audit (run BEFORE adding/running anything new)
Red CI is a contract: it must always mean "stop, look, fix." A suite with high coverage but flaky reds is less trustworthy than a smaller suite with zero false alarms — because the team has stopped reading the reds. Fix the signal before you add more tests.
Method — classify the last 30 days of CI failures:
| Bucket | Definition | Verdict | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real bug | Red mapped to a real defect; fixed by a code change | ✓ Signal worked | |
| Flake | Timing/network/concurrency noise; passed on rerun, no code change | ✗ Test design defect | |
| Infra | Missing secret, runner image change, upstream dep — not the code | ✗ Workflow design defect |
Signal Integrity Score: SI = Real bugs / (Real bugs + Flakes + Infra) × 100
| SI % | Verdict | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | ✪ | Maintain — exemplary signal | |
| 95–99% | ★ Championship | Annotate any flake immediately | |
| 85–94% | ◇ Acceptable | Schedule the flake-class fix this sprint | |
| 70–84% | ● Eroding | Stop adding tests — fix flakes first | |
| <70% | ○ Dead signal | Block merges until signal restored |
Eliminate on sight: hard absolute-time perf asserts on shared runners (expect(t).toBeLessThan(30)) → move to a non-gating workflow; network calls in the main suite → mock at the boundary; concurrency tests without explicit ordering; secret-dependent steps that hard-fail when missing → grey-skip.
The inverse rule: green CI that passes while something is broken is equally a violation. If a real bug shipped despite green, write the regression test BEFORE the fix lands.
The conversation is the real gate. CI is supporting infrastructure for the human + AI audit; flaky CI wastes the audit's bandwidth. Signal Integrity keeps CI worthy of the conversation.
Execution loop
- Scope — what should it do? happy path, edges, failure modes, perf targets, tier of each.
- Audit signal (Step 0) before trusting or extending the suite.
- Run each test: set up, prepare data, execute, observe actual vs expected, record pass/fail/blocked, capture evidence on failure.
- Reproduce every failure deterministically; root-cause it; note the fix.
- Tier coverage check — confirm every test is tiered:
``bash faf wjttc --path tests # audit tier coverage (vendor-neutral) faf wjttc --strict --json # CI gate: non-zero if any test is untiered ``
- Report — file the WJTTC report (below), then surface the tier verdict.
WJTTC report format
Save reports to `./wjttc-reports/` in the project under test (or a path the user specifies). Never write to an absolute/personal path. Name files YYYY-MM-DD-{project}-{feature}-tests.yaml.
Tier verdict
Map the pass rate (or SI score) to the single canonical FAF tier ladder. No second ladder, no medals.
| Score | Tier | Symbol | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | Trophy | ✪ | |
| 99% | Gold | ★ | |
| 95% | Silver | ◆ | |
| 85% | Bronze | ◇ | |
| 70% | Green | ● | |
| 55% | Yellow | ● | |
| 1% | Red | ○ | |
| 0% | White | ♡ |
The FAF score is deterministic — same input, same score. A test report should be just as falsifiable: every verdict traces to a reproducible run. FAF doesn't lie.
WJTTC method notes
- Test with real data, not just sanitized inputs — anonymized production data, messy inputs, production-like volume.
- Document every failure so it can be reproduced: what failed, how to repro, why it matters, how to fix.
- Tier before you test — severity is the tier, so triage first;
faf wjttcenforces that nothing ships untiered. - Wire it into CI with TAF receipts so the report is part of the record, not a one-off:
``bash faf taf setup --write # create .github/workflows/taf.yml (test receipts) faf score --json # deterministic score snapshot for the receipt ``
Quick checklist (before release)
- [ ] Signal Integrity audited (SI ≥ 85%)
- [ ] Brake tests pass — zero tolerance
- [ ] Edges + error handling tested
- [ ] Tyre: behaves under load / concurrency
- [ ]
faf wjttc --strictgreen — every test tiered - [ ] Regression (Pit) suite passes
- [ ] WJTTC report filed in
./wjttc-reports/ - [ ] Pass rate ≥ 85% (◇ Bronze, production-ready)
Resources
- Website: https://faf.one · Skills Site: https://skills.faf.one
- faf-cli: https://github.com/Wolfe-Jam/faf-cli
- Sibling skill: wjttc-builder (plan + generate the suite)
Made by wolfejam.dev — "We break things so others never have to know they were broken."
Security
- Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
- Model reviewNot runA model review is scheduled for the next rescan.
Quality evaluation
- Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.
Source
- SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/wjttc-tester/SKILL.md
Popularity
- Repository stars
- 4
- 7-day trend score
- 8
Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.
Works with
Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- GitHub Copilot
- Windsurf
- Codex
- Gemini CLI
- Cline
- Amp
- Roo Code
- Goose
- Continue
- Kilo Code
- Junie
- Trae
- OpenHands
- Qwen Code
- AI Agent
- Tabnine Chat
- Sourcegraph Cody
- Amazon Q
- Firebase Genkit
- Sweep
- Devin
- Phind
- Mentat
- Claude Desktop
- Aider
- GPT Pilot
- Plandex
- bolt.new
- v0
- Replit Agent
- Anse
- TypingMind
- BetterChatGPT
- LibreChat
- Warp AI
- Pieces
- Fig AI
Embed badge
[](https://verified-skill.com/skills/wolfe-jam/faf-skills/wjttc-tester)