---

description: Generate tests, manage test documentation, and ensure maximum code coverage

---

## User Input

```text
$ARGUMENTS
```

You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

## Goal

Execute semantic audit and full testing cycle: verify contract compliance, verify decision-memory continuity, emulate logic, ensure maximum coverage, and maintain test quality.

## Operating Constraints

1. **NEVER delete existing tests** - Only update if they fail due to bugs in the test or implementation
2. **NEVER duplicate tests** - Check existing tests first before creating new ones
3. **Use TEST_FIXTURE fixtures** - For CRITICAL tier modules, read @TEST_FIXTURE from .ai/standards/semantics.md
4. **Co-location required** - Write tests in `__tests__` directories relative to the code being tested
5. **Decision-memory regression guard** - Tests and audits must not normalize silent reintroduction of any path documented in upstream `@REJECTED`

## Execution Steps

### 1. Analyze Context

Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS.

Determine:
- FEATURE_DIR - where the feature is located
- TASKS_FILE - path to `tasks.md`
- Which modules need testing based on task status
- Which ADRs or task guardrails define rejected paths for the touched scope

### 2. Load Relevant Artifacts

**From `tasks.md`:**
- Identify completed implementation tasks (not test tasks)
- Extract file paths that need tests
- Extract guardrail summaries and blocked paths

**From `.ai/standards/semantics.md`:**
- Read effective complexity expectations
- Read decision-memory rules for ADR, preventive guardrails, and reactive Micro-ADR
- For CRITICAL modules: Read `@TEST_` fixtures

**From ADR sources and touched code:**
- Read `[DEF:id:ADR]` nodes when present
- Read local `@RATIONALE` and `@REJECTED` in touched contracts

**From existing tests:**
- Scan `__tests__` directories for existing tests
- Identify test patterns and coverage gaps

### 3. Test Coverage Analysis

Create coverage matrix:

| Module | File | Has Tests | Complexity / Tier | TEST_FIXTURE Available | Rejected Path Guarded |
|--------|------|-----------|-------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### 4. Semantic Audit & Logic Emulation (CRITICAL)

Before writing tests, the Tester MUST:
1. **Run `axiom-core.audit_contracts_tool`**: Identify semantic violations.
2. **Run a protocol-shape review on touched files**:
   - Reject non-canonical semantic markup, including docstring-only annotations such as `@PURPOSE`, `@PRE`, or `@INVARIANT` written inside class/function docstrings without canonical `[DEF]...[/DEF]` anchors and header metadata.
   - Reject files whose effective complexity contract is under-specified relative to [`.ai/standards/semantics.md`](.ai/standards/semantics.md).
   - Reject Python Complexity 4+ modules that omit meaningful `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` checkpoints.
   - Reject Python Complexity 5 modules that omit `belief_scope(...)`, `@DATA_CONTRACT`, or `@INVARIANT`.
   - Treat broken or missing closing anchors as blocking violations.
   - Reject retained workaround code if the local contract lacks `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`.
   - Reject code that silently re-enables a path declared in upstream ADR or local guardrails as rejected.
3. **Emulate Algorithm**: Step through the code implementation in mind.
   - Verify it adheres to the `@PURPOSE` and `@INVARIANT`.
   - Verify `@PRE` and `@POST` conditions are correctly handled.
   - Verify the implementation follows accepted-path rationale rather than drifting into a blocked path.
4. **Validation Verdict**:
   - If audit fails: Emit `[AUDIT_FAIL: semantic_noncompliance]` with concrete file-path reasons and notify Orchestrator.
   - Example blocking case: [`backend/src/services/dataset_review/repositories/session_repository.py`](backend/src/services/dataset_review/repositories/session_repository.py) contains a module anchor, but its nested repository class/method semantics are expressed as loose docstrings instead of canonical anchored contracts; this MUST be rejected until remediated or explicitly waived.
   - If audit passes: Proceed to writing/verifying tests.

### 5. Write Tests (TDD Approach)

For each module requiring tests:

1. **Check existing tests**: Scan `__tests__/` for duplicates.
2. **Read TEST_FIXTURE**: If CRITICAL tier, read `@TEST_FIXTURE` from semantics header.
3. **Do not normalize broken semantics through tests**:
   - The Tester must not write tests that silently accept malformed semantic protocol usage.
   - If implementation is semantically invalid, stop and reject instead of adapting tests around the invalid structure.
4. **Write test**: Follow co-location strategy.
   - Python: `src/module/__tests__/test_module.py`
   - Svelte: `src/lib/components/__tests__/test_component.test.js`
5. **Use mocks**: Use `unittest.mock.MagicMock` for external dependencies
6. **Add rejected-path regression coverage when relevant**:
   - If ADR or local contract names a blocked path in `@REJECTED`, add or verify at least one test or explicit audit check that would fail if that forbidden path were silently restored.

### 4a. UX Contract Testing (Frontend Components)

For Svelte components with `@UX_STATE`, `@UX_FEEDBACK`, `@UX_RECOVERY` tags:

1. **Parse UX tags**: Read component file and extract all `@UX_*` annotations
2. **Generate UX tests**: Create tests for each UX state transition
   ```javascript
   // Example: Testing @UX_STATE: Idle -> Expanded
   it('should transition from Idle to Expanded on toggle click', async () => {
     render(Sidebar);
     const toggleBtn = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /toggle/i });
     await fireEvent.click(toggleBtn);
     expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar')).toHaveClass('expanded');
   });
   ```
3. **Test `@UX_FEEDBACK`**: Verify visual feedback (toast, shake, color changes)
4. **Test `@UX_RECOVERY`**: Verify error recovery mechanisms (retry, clear input)
5. **Use `@UX_TEST` fixtures**: If component has `@UX_TEST` tags, use them as test specifications
6. **Verify decision memory**: If the UI contract declares `@REJECTED`, ensure browser-visible behavior does not regress into the rejected path.

**UX Test Template:**
```javascript
// [DEF:ComponentUXTests:Module]
// @C: 3
// @RELATION: VERIFIES -> ../Component.svelte
// @PURPOSE: Test UX states and transitions

describe('Component UX States', () => {
  // @UX_STATE: Idle -> {action: click, expected: Active}
  it('should transition Idle -> Active on click', async () => { ... });
  
  // @UX_FEEDBACK: Toast on success
  it('should show toast on successful action', async () => { ... });
  
  // @UX_RECOVERY: Retry on error
  it('should allow retry on error', async () => { ... });
});
// [/DEF:__tests__/test_Component:Module]
```

### 5. Test Documentation

Create/update documentation in `specs/<feature>/tests/`:

```
tests/
├── README.md           # Test strategy and overview
├── coverage.md         # Coverage matrix and reports
└── reports/
    └── YYYY-MM-DD-report.md
```

Include decision-memory coverage notes when ADR or rejected-path regressions were checked.

### 6. Execute Tests

Run tests and report results:

**Backend:**
```bash
cd backend && .venv/bin/python3 -m pytest -v
```

**Frontend:**
```bash
cd frontend && npm run test
```

### 7. Update Tasks

Mark test tasks as completed in `tasks.md` with:
- Test file path
- Coverage achieved
- Any issues found
- Whether rejected-path regression checks passed or remain manual audit items

## Output

Generate test execution report:

```markdown
# Test Report: [FEATURE]

**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Executed by**: Tester Agent

## Coverage Summary

| Module | Tests | Coverage % |
|--------|-------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... |

## Test Results

- Total: [X]
- Passed: [X]
- Failed: [X]
- Skipped: [X]

## Semantic Audit Verdict

- Verdict: PASS | FAIL
- Blocking Violations:
  - [file path] -> [reason]
- Decision Memory:
  - ADRs checked: [...]
  - Rejected-path regressions: PASS | FAIL
  - Missing `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`: [...]
- Notes:
  - Reject docstring-only semantic pseudo-markup
  - Reject complexity/contract mismatches
  - Reject missing belief-state instrumentation for Python Complexity 4/5
  - Reject silent resurrection of rejected paths

## Issues Found

| Test | Error | Resolution |
|------|-------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... |

## Next Steps

- [ ] Fix failed tests
- [ ] Fix blocking semantic violations before acceptance
- [ ] Fix decision-memory drift or rejected-path regressions
- [ ] Add more coverage for [module]
- [ ] Review TEST_FIXTURE fixtures
```

## Context for Testing

$ARGUMENTS