@grimoire-cc/cli 0.13.2 → 0.14.0

package/packs/dotnet-pack/skills/grimoire.unit-testing-dotnet/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+---
+name: grimoire.unit-testing-dotnet
+description: "C#/.NET unit testing specialist. Framework selection, patterns, and best practices for xUnit, TUnit, NUnit, Moq, and NSubstitute. Use when writing tests for .cs files, configuring test projects, or asking about .NET testing patterns, mocking, assertions, async testing, FluentAssertions alternatives."
+---
+
+# .NET Unit Testing
+
+Expert guidance for writing clean, maintainable unit tests in C#/.NET projects.
+
+**Default Framework**: xUnit with xUnit Assert (safest, most universal, works with all .NET versions)
+**Recommended for new .NET 8+ projects**: TUnit (modern, async-first, built-in fluent assertions, MIT license)
+
+## Framework Selection
+
+### Detection
+
+1. Check existing test files first — always match what the project uses
+2. Check `.csproj` for `TargetFramework` and test package references
+3. Check for xUnit (`xunit`), TUnit (`TUnit`), NUnit (`NUnit`), MSTest (`MSTest.TestFramework`)
+
+### Decision Table
+
+| Condition | Use | Reason |
+|-----------|-----|--------|
+| Project has existing tests | **Match existing** | Consistency is paramount |
+| New .NET 8+ greenfield | **Offer TUnit** | Modern, async-first, built-in assertions |
+| New .NET 6/7 project | **xUnit** | TUnit requires .NET 8+ |
+| .NET Framework project | **xUnit** | Universal compatibility |
+| Project uses NUnit | **NUnit** | Match existing |
+| Uncertain or mixed | **xUnit** | Safe default |
+
+**For new .NET 8+ projects without existing tests:**
+Offer the choice: "This is a new .NET 8+ project. I'll use **xUnit** (industry standard) by default. Would you prefer **TUnit** instead? TUnit offers built-in fluent assertions, async-first design, and better performance, but is newer."
+
+**Note on FluentAssertions**: Version 8+ requires a commercial license ($130/dev/year). Avoid recommending it unless the project already uses it.
+
+## Naming Conventions
+
+Use `MethodName_Scenario_ExpectedBehavior` with PascalCase:
+
+```csharp
+// Pattern: MethodName_Scenario_ExpectedBehavior
+ProcessOrder_WithValidOrder_ReturnsSuccess()
+GetUser_WithNonExistentId_ThrowsUserNotFoundException()
+CalculateDiscount_WhenOrderExceeds100_Returns10PercentOff()
+```
+
+## Patterns
+
+### AAA with xUnit
+
+```csharp
+public class OrderServiceTests : IDisposable
+{
+    private readonly Mock<IOrderRepository> _mockRepo;
+    private readonly FakeLogger<OrderService> _fakeLogger;
+    private readonly OrderService _sut;
+
+    public OrderServiceTests()
+    {
+        _mockRepo = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
+        _fakeLogger = new FakeLogger<OrderService>();
+        _sut = new OrderService(_fakeLogger, _mockRepo.Object);
+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ProcessOrder_WithValidOrder_ReturnsSuccess()
+    {
+        // Arrange
+        var order = CreateValidOrder();
+        _mockRepo.Setup(r => r.SaveAsync(It.IsAny<Order>()))
+            .ReturnsAsync(new Order { Id = "123" });
+
+        // Act
+        var result = await _sut.ProcessOrderAsync(order);
+
+        // Assert
+        Assert.True(result.IsSuccess);
+        Assert.Equal("123", result.Id);
+    }
+
+    public void Dispose() { /* cleanup if needed */ }
+}
+```
+
+### AAA with TUnit
+
+```csharp
+public class OrderServiceTests
+{
+    private readonly Mock<IOrderRepository> _mockRepo = new();
+    private readonly OrderService _sut;
+
+    public OrderServiceTests()
+    {
+        _sut = new OrderService(_mockRepo.Object);
+    }
+
+    [Test]
+    public async Task ProcessOrder_WithValidOrder_ReturnsSuccess()
+    {
+        // Arrange
+        var order = CreateValidOrder();
+        _mockRepo.Setup(r => r.SaveAsync(It.IsAny<Order>()))
+            .ReturnsAsync(new Order { Id = "123" });
+
+        // Act
+        var result = await _sut.ProcessOrderAsync(order);
+
+        // Assert — TUnit assertions are async and fluent
+        await Assert.That(result.IsSuccess).IsTrue();
+        await Assert.That(result.Id).IsEqualTo("123");
+    }
+}
+```
+
+### Parameterized Tests
+
+```csharp
+// xUnit
+[Theory]
+[InlineData(0, 100.0)]
+[InlineData(10, 90.0)]
+[InlineData(50, 50.0)]
+public void ApplyDiscount_CalculatesCorrectly(int discount, double expected)
+{
+    Assert.Equal(expected, ApplyDiscount(100.0, discount));
+}
+
+// TUnit
+[Test]
+[Arguments(0, 100.0)]
+[Arguments(10, 90.0)]
+[Arguments(50, 50.0)]
+public async Task ApplyDiscount_CalculatesCorrectly(int discount, double expected)
+{
+    await Assert.That(ApplyDiscount(100.0, discount)).IsEqualTo(expected);
+}
+```
+
+### Error Testing
+
+```csharp
+// xUnit exception testing
+[Fact]
+public async Task ProcessOrder_WithNullOrder_ThrowsArgumentNullException()
+{
+    var exception = await Assert.ThrowsAsync<ArgumentNullException>(
+        () => _sut.ProcessOrderAsync(null!));
+    Assert.Equal("order", exception.ParamName);
+}
+
+// TUnit exception testing
+[Test]
+public async Task ProcessOrder_WithNullOrder_ThrowsArgumentNullException()
+{
+    var action = () => _sut.ProcessOrderAsync(null!);
+    await Assert.That(action).ThrowsException()
+        .OfType<ArgumentNullException>();
+}
+```
+
+### FakeLogger for Logging Tests
+
+```csharp
+using Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Testing;
+
+var fakeLogger = new FakeLogger<OrderService>();
+var sut = new OrderService(fakeLogger);
+await sut.ProcessOrderAsync(orderId: 123);
+
+var logEntry = fakeLogger.Collector.GetSnapshot()
+    .Single(r => r.Level == LogLevel.Information);
+var state = logEntry.StructuredState!.ToDictionary(x => x.Key, x => x.Value);
+Assert.Equal("123", state["OrderId"]);
+```
+
+## Mocking
+
+### Moq (default)
+
+```csharp
+var mockRepo = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
+mockRepo.Setup(r => r.GetByIdAsync(It.IsAny<Guid>(), It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()))
+    .ReturnsAsync(expectedDocument);
+
+// Verify
+mockRepo.Verify(r => r.SaveAsync(It.IsAny<Order>()), Times.Once);
+```
+
+### NSubstitute
+
+```csharp
+var repo = Substitute.For<IOrderRepository>();
+repo.GetByIdAsync(Arg.Any<Guid>(), Arg.Any<CancellationToken>())
+    .Returns(expectedDocument);
+
+// Verify
+await repo.Received(1).SaveAsync(Arg.Any<Order>());
+```
+
+### What NOT to mock
+
+- Value objects, records, DTOs
+- Pure static methods with no side effects
+- The class under test itself
+- Simple data structures
+
+Mock only at system boundaries: repositories, external APIs, file system, clock.
+
+## File Conventions
+
+- `Tests/` or `*.Tests/` project mirroring source structure
+- `*Tests.cs` suffix for test classes
+- Constructor for per-test setup (xUnit creates new instance per test)
+- `IDisposable` for teardown
+- `dotnet test` to run
+
+## Package Setup
+
+```bash
+# xUnit (default)
+dotnet add package xunit
+dotnet add package xunit.runner.visualstudio
+dotnet add package Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
+
+# TUnit (for .NET 8+ projects)
+dotnet add package TUnit
+
+# Mocking
+dotnet add package Moq
+# or
+dotnet add package NSubstitute
+
+# Logging testing
+dotnet add package Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Testing
+```
+
+## Authoritative Sources
+
+- xUnit: https://xunit.net
+- TUnit: https://github.com/thomhurst/TUnit
+- NUnit: https://nunit.org
+- Moq: https://github.com/moq/moq4
+- NSubstitute: https://nsubstitute.github.io
+- Kent Beck — Canon TDD: https://tidyfirst.substack.com/p/canon-tdd
+- Martin Fowler — Mocks Aren't Stubs: https://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html
+
+## Reference Materials
+
+- **[Anti-Patterns](reference/anti-patterns.md)** — Common testing mistakes and how to fix them
+- **[TDD Workflow Patterns](reference/tdd-workflow-patterns.md)** — Red-Green-Refactor, Transformation Priority Premise, when to use TDD

package/packs/{dev-pack/skills/grimoire.tdd-specialist → dotnet-pack/skills/grimoire.unit-testing-dotnet}/reference/anti-patterns.md

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ Common testing mistakes that reduce test value and increase maintenance cost. Th
 - [The Mockery](#the-mockery)
 - [The Inspector](#the-inspector)
 - [The Flaky Test](#the-flaky-test)
+- [The Cargo Culter](#the-cargo-culter)
+- [The Hard Test](#the-hard-test)
 
 ## The Liar
 
@@ -164,3 +166,79 @@ assertThat(result).isSortedAccordingTo(naturalOrder());
 - Dependency on test execution order
 
 **Fix:** Inject time as a dependency. Use fixed seeds for randomness. Ensure test isolation. Use proper async synchronization.
+
+## The Cargo Culter
+
+**What it is:** Writing tests to hit a coverage percentage target rather than to verify behavior. The tests exist to satisfy a metric, not to provide confidence.
+
+**How to spot it:**
+- Tests that assert trivially obvious things (e.g., `assert user.name == user.name`)
+- Every private method has a corresponding test accessed via reflection
+- 100% coverage but bugs still escape to production
+- Test suite takes minutes to pass but developers don't trust it
+
+**Fix:** Coverage is a diagnostic tool, not a goal. Use it to find untested gaps, not as a number to optimize. High 80s–90% emerges naturally from disciplined TDD. A test that only exists to push coverage up is worse than no test — it adds maintenance cost without adding confidence.
+
+```python
+# Bad — written for coverage, not for confidence
+def test_user_has_name():
+    user = User(name="Alice")
+    assert user.name is not None  # This verifies nothing meaningful
+
+# Good — written to verify a business rule
+def test_user_with_empty_name_raises_validation_error():
+    with pytest.raises(ValidationError, match="name cannot be empty"):
+        User(name="")
+```
+
+> See: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestCoverage.html
+
+## The Hard Test
+
+**What it is:** Not an anti-pattern in the test itself, but a signal from the test about the production code. When a test is painful, complex, or requires elaborate setup, the production code has a design problem.
+
+**How to spot it:**
+- Need to mock 5+ dependencies to test one class
+- Need to access private internals to verify behavior
+- Test requires a complex sequence of operations just to get to the state under test
+- You find yourself thinking "testing this would be too hard"
+
+**What it signals:**
+- Too many responsibilities in one class (SRP violation)
+- Hidden dependencies or tight coupling
+- Poor separation of concerns
+- Untestable architecture (e.g., side effects embedded in business logic)
+
+**Fix:** Resist the urge to skip the test or work around it with clever mocking. Instead, fix the production code design. Extract classes, inject dependencies, separate concerns. A hard test is a free design review — take the feedback.
+
+```python
+# Hard to test — service does too much
+class OrderService:
+    def process(self, order):
+        db = Database()          # hidden dependency
+        email = EmailClient()    # hidden dependency
+        self._validate(order)
+        db.save(order)
+        email.send_confirmation(order)
+        self._update_inventory(order)  # another responsibility
+
+# Easy to test — dependencies explicit, concerns separated
+class OrderService:
+    def __init__(self, repo: OrderRepository, notifier: Notifier):
+        self._repo = repo
+        self._notifier = notifier
+
+    def process(self, order: Order) -> OrderResult:
+        self._validate(order)
+        saved = self._repo.save(order)
+        self._notifier.notify(saved)
+        return saved
+```
+
+---
+
+## Further Reading
+
+- xUnit Patterns (Meszaros): http://xunitpatterns.com
+- Codepipes testing anti-patterns: https://blog.codepipes.com/testing/software-testing-antipatterns.html
+- Google SWE Book — Test Doubles: https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch13.html

package/packs/dotnet-pack/skills/grimoire.unit-testing-dotnet/reference/tdd-workflow-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+# TDD Workflow Patterns
+
+Guidance on the test-driven development process, when to apply it, and advanced techniques.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [Canon TDD — Start with a Test List](#canon-tdd--start-with-a-test-list)
+- [Red-Green-Refactor](#red-green-refactor)
+- [Transformation Priority Premise](#transformation-priority-premise)
+- [F.I.R.S.T. Principles](#first-principles)
+- [London School vs Detroit School](#london-school-vs-detroit-school)
+- [When to Use TDD](#when-to-use-tdd)
+- [When TDD Is Less Effective](#when-tdd-is-less-effective)
+- [BDD and ATDD Extensions](#bdd-and-atdd-extensions)
+- [Advanced Techniques](#advanced-techniques)
+
+## Canon TDD — Start with a Test List
+
+> Source: https://tidyfirst.substack.com/p/canon-tdd
+
+Kent Beck's recommended starting point is not a single test but a **test list** — a written enumeration of all behaviors you intend to verify. This separates the creative work (what to test) from the mechanical work (write, make pass, refactor).
+
+**Process:**
+1. Write down all behaviors the code needs — a flat list, not tests
+2. Pick the simplest item on the list
+3. Write one failing test for it
+4. Make it pass with the minimum code
+5. Refactor
+6. Cross off the item; repeat
+
+**Why test order matters:** Starting with simpler behaviors forces simpler transformations (see TPP below) and lets the design emerge naturally. Jumping to complex cases early leads to over-engineered solutions. The test list keeps you focused and prevents scope creep.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+> Source: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDrivenDevelopment.html
+
+The core TDD cycle, repeated in small increments:
+
+### 1. Red — Write a Failing Test
+
+Write the smallest test that describes the next piece of behavior. The test MUST fail before you write any production code. A test that passes immediately provides no confidence.
+
+**Rules:**
+- Write only ONE test at a time
+- The test should compile/parse but fail at the assertion
+- If the test passes immediately, it's either trivial or testing existing behavior
+
+### 2. Green — Make It Pass
+
+Write the MINIMUM code to make the failing test pass. Do not add extra logic, handle cases not yet tested, or optimize.
+
+**Rules:**
+- Write the simplest code that makes the test pass
+- It's OK to hardcode values initially — the next test will force generalization
+- Do not add code for future tests
+- All existing tests must still pass
+
+### 3. Refactor — Clean Up
+
+With all tests green, improve the code structure without changing behavior. Tests give you the safety net.
+
+**Rules:**
+- No new functionality during refactoring
+- All tests must remain green after each refactoring step
+- Remove duplication, improve naming, extract methods
+- Refactor both production code AND test code
+
+### Cycle Length
+
+Each Red-Green-Refactor cycle should take 1–10 minutes. If you're spending more than 10 minutes in the Red or Green phase, the step is too large — break it down.
+
+## Transformation Priority Premise
+
+> Source: http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2013/05/27/TheTransformationPriorityPremise.html
+
+When going from Red to Green, prefer simpler transformations over complex ones. Listed from simplest to most complex:
+
+1. **Constant** — return a hardcoded value
+2. **Scalar** — replace constant with a variable
+3. **Direct** — replace unconditional with conditional (if/else)
+4. **Collection** — operate on a collection instead of a scalar
+5. **Iteration** — add a loop
+6. **Recursion** — add recursive call
+7. **Assignment** — replace computed value with mutation
+
+**Example — building FizzBuzz with TDD:**
+
+```
+Test 1: input 1 → "1"          Transformation: Constant
+Test 2: input 2 → "2"          Transformation: Scalar (use the input)
+Test 3: input 3 → "Fizz"       Transformation: Direct (add if)
+Test 4: input 5 → "Buzz"       Transformation: Direct (add another if)
+Test 5: input 15 → "FizzBuzz"  Transformation: Direct (add combined if)
+Test 6: input 1-15 → full list Transformation: Iteration (generalize)
+```
+
+By following this priority, you avoid over-engineering early and let the design emerge naturally from the tests.
+
+## F.I.R.S.T. Principles
+
+Every unit test must satisfy these five properties:
+
+| Principle | Definition | Violation Signal |
+|-----------|------------|-----------------|
+| **Fast** | Runs in milliseconds | Real I/O, network calls, `sleep()` |
+| **Independent** | No dependency on other tests | Shared mutable state, ordered execution |
+| **Repeatable** | Same result every run | System clock, random data without seed, race conditions |
+| **Self-Validating** | Pass or fail without manual interpretation | Tests that print output for a human to read |
+| **Timely** | Written before or alongside production code | Tests added weeks after a feature shipped |
+
+F.I.R.S.T. is a diagnostic checklist: if a test violates any property, it will erode team trust and reduce the value of the suite.
+
+## London School vs Detroit School
+
+> Source: https://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html
+
+Two schools of TDD with different philosophies on test doubles. Most teams use a hybrid.
+
+### Detroit School (Classicist, Inside-Out)
+
+- **Unit definition**: A module of any size — can span multiple classes
+- **Approach**: Bottom-up; start from domain logic, build outward
+- **Test doubles**: Avoid mocks; use real objects when feasible
+- **Verification**: State verification — examine the result after execution
+- **Testing style**: Black-box; test through public API
+- **Refactoring**: Safe — tests aren't coupled to implementation details
+- **Best for**: Building confidence in real interactions; reducing brittleness
+
+### London School (Mockist, Outside-In)
+
+- **Unit definition**: A single class in isolation
+- **Approach**: Top-down; start from the API, work inward
+- **Test doubles**: Mock all collaborators
+- **Verification**: Behavior verification — confirm correct method calls occurred
+- **Testing style**: White-box; tests know about internals
+- **Refactoring**: Can be brittle — tests break when implementation changes
+- **Best for**: Designing interactions upfront; driving architecture decisions
+
+### Recommended: Hybrid Approach
+
+Apply Detroit discipline as the default — use real objects, verify state. Apply London mocking only at architectural boundaries (external APIs, databases, clocks). Never mock value objects, pure functions, or in-process helpers.
+
+The most important rule: if you're mocking to make a test easy to write, that's often a design smell (see The Hard Test in anti-patterns). If you're mocking because the dependency is genuinely external or slow, that's the right use.
+
+## When to Use TDD
+
+TDD is most valuable when:
+
+- **Business logic** — Complex rules, calculations, state machines. TDD forces you to think through all cases before implementing.
+- **Algorithm development** — Sorting, parsing, validation, transformation logic. Tests serve as a specification.
+- **Bug fixes** — Write a test that reproduces the bug first (Red), then fix it (Green). This prevents regressions.
+- **API/interface design** — Writing tests first helps you design interfaces from the consumer's perspective.
+- **Refactoring** — Ensure tests exist before refactoring. If they don't, write characterization tests first, then refactor.
+
+## When TDD Is Less Effective
+
+TDD is not universally optimal. Use judgment:
+
+- **UI/visual components** — Layout, styling, animations are hard to express as unit tests. Use visual regression testing or snapshot tests instead.
+- **Exploratory/prototype code** — When you don't know what to build yet, writing tests first slows exploration. Spike first, then write tests.
+- **Thin integration layers** — Simple pass-through code (e.g., a controller that calls a service) may not benefit from test-first approach. Integration tests are more valuable here.
+- **Infrastructure/glue code** — Database migrations, config files, build scripts. Test these with integration or end-to-end tests.
+- **External API wrappers** — Thin clients wrapping external APIs are better tested with integration tests against the real (or sandboxed) API.
+
+For these cases, write tests AFTER the implementation (test-last), but still write them.
+
+## BDD and ATDD Extensions
+
+### Behavior-Driven Development (BDD)
+
+> Source: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/GivenWhenThen.html
+
+BDD extends TDD by using natural language to describe behavior. Useful when tests need to be readable by non-developers.
+
+**Given-When-Then** structure:
+
+```gherkin
+Given a cart with items totaling $100
+When a 10% discount is applied
+Then the total should be $90
+```
+
+Maps to test code:
+
+```python
+def test_cart_with_10_percent_discount_totals_90():
+    # Given
+    cart = Cart(items=[Item(price=100)])
+
+    # When
+    cart.apply_discount(PercentageDiscount(10))
+
+    # Then
+    assert cart.total == 90.0
+```
+
+### Acceptance TDD (ATDD)
+
+Write high-level acceptance tests before implementing a feature. These tests describe the feature from the user's perspective and drive the overall design. Unit tests (via TDD) then drive the implementation of each component.
+
+**Flow:**
+1. Write acceptance test (fails — Red)
+2. Use TDD to implement components needed to pass it
+3. Acceptance test passes (Green)
+4. Refactor
+
+ATDD is most valuable for features with clear acceptance criteria and when working with product owners or stakeholders.
+
+## Advanced Techniques
+
+### Property-Based Testing
+
+Instead of writing individual input/output pairs, define **properties** that should always hold true and let a framework generate hundreds of test cases automatically.
+
+**Best for:** Pure functions, algorithms, data transformations, serialization round-trips.
+
+**Tools:**
+- Python: [Hypothesis](https://hypothesis.readthedocs.io)
+- JavaScript/TypeScript: [fast-check](https://fast-check.dev)
+- Go: `testing/quick` (stdlib), [gopter](https://github.com/leanovate/gopter)
+- Rust: [proptest](https://github.com/proptest-rs/proptest)
+- Java: [jqwik](https://jqwik.net)
+- Elixir: [StreamData](https://hexdocs.pm/stream_data)
+
+**Example property** (Python/Hypothesis):
+```python
+from hypothesis import given, strategies as st
+
+@given(st.lists(st.integers()))
+def test_sort_is_idempotent(lst):
+    assert sorted(sorted(lst)) == sorted(lst)
+```
+
+### Mutation Testing
+
+Mutation testing introduces small code changes (mutations) and checks whether your tests catch them. A test suite that lets mutations survive has gaps in its coverage.
+
+**Metric:** Mutation score = % of mutations killed. Target 80%+.
+
+**Tools:**
+- JavaScript/TypeScript/C#: [Stryker](https://stryker-mutator.io)
+- Java: [PITest](https://pitest.org)
+- Python: [mutmut](https://mutmut.readthedocs.io)
+- Go: [go-mutesting](https://github.com/zimmski/go-mutesting)
+
+Run mutation testing periodically (not on every commit) to identify weak spots in the test suite.
+
+### Contract Testing
+
+In microservice or distributed architectures, contract tests verify that services communicate correctly without running full integration tests.
+
+**How it works:**
+1. Consumer defines a contract (expected interactions)
+2. Provider verifies it can fulfill the contract
+3. Both test independently — no need to spin up the full system
+
+**Tool:** [Pact](https://pact.io) — supports most major languages.
+
+Contract tests replace the expensive integration test layer for inter-service communication while still catching breaking API changes early.

package/packs/go-pack/grimoire.json

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+{
+  "name": "go-pack",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "agents": [],
+  "skills": [
+    {
+      "name": "grimoire.unit-testing-go",
+      "path": "skills/grimoire.unit-testing-go",
+      "description": "Go unit testing specialist. Provides conventions and patterns for the testing package and testify.",
+      "version": "1.0.0",
+      "triggers": {
+        "keywords": ["gotest", "testify", "gomock", "table-driven"],
+        "file_extensions": [".go"],
+        "patterns": ["write.*test", "add.*test", "create.*test", "go.*test", "test.*coverage"],
+        "file_paths": ["**/*_test.go", "**/testdata/**"]
+      }
+    }
+  ]
+}