ai-regression-testing
Regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code.
Best use case
ai-regression-testing is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code.
Teams using ai-regression-testing should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/ai-regression-testing/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How ai-regression-testing Compares
| Feature / Agent | ai-regression-testing | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# AI Regression Testing
Testing patterns specifically designed for AI-assisted development, where the same model writes code and reviews it — creating systematic blind spots that only automated tests can catch.
## When to Use
- AI agent (Gemini CLI, Cursor, Codex) has modified API routes or backend logic
- A bug was found and fixed — need to prevent re-introduction
- Project has a sandbox/mock mode that can be leveraged for DB-free testing
- Running `/bug-check` or similar review commands after code changes
- Multiple code paths exist (sandbox vs production, feature flags, etc.)
## The Core Problem
When an AI writes code and then reviews its own work, it carries the same assumptions into both steps. This creates a predictable failure pattern:
```
AI writes fix → AI reviews fix → AI says "looks correct" → Bug still exists
```
**Real-world example** (observed in production):
```
Fix 1: Added notification_settings to API response
→ Forgot to add it to the SELECT query
→ AI reviewed and missed it (same blind spot)
Fix 2: Added it to SELECT query
→ TypeScript build error (column not in generated types)
→ AI reviewed Fix 1 but didn't catch the SELECT issue
Fix 3: Changed to SELECT *
→ Fixed production path, forgot sandbox path
→ AI reviewed and missed it AGAIN (4th occurrence)
Fix 4: Test caught it instantly on first run ✅
```
The pattern: **sandbox/production path inconsistency** is the #1 AI-introduced regression.
## Sandbox-Mode API Testing
Most projects with AI-friendly architecture have a sandbox/mock mode. This is the key to fast, DB-free API testing.
### Setup (Vitest + Next.js App Router)
```typescript
// vitest.config.ts
import { defineConfig } from "vitest/config";
import path from "path";
export default defineConfig({
test: {
environment: "node",
globals: true,
include: ["__tests__/**/*.test.ts"],
setupFiles: ["__tests__/setup.ts"],
},
resolve: {
alias: {
"@": path.resolve(__dirname, "."),
},
},
});
```
```typescript
// __tests__/setup.ts
// Force sandbox mode — no database needed
process.env.SANDBOX_MODE = "true";
process.env.NEXT_PUBLIC_SUPABASE_URL = "";
process.env.NEXT_PUBLIC_SUPABASE_ANON_KEY = "";
```
### Test Helper for Next.js API Routes
```typescript
// __tests__/helpers.ts
import { NextRequest } from "next/server";
export function createTestRequest(
url: string,
options?: {
method?: string;
body?: Record<string, unknown>;
headers?: Record<string, string>;
sandboxUserId?: string;
},
): NextRequest {
const { method = "GET", body, headers = {}, sandboxUserId } = options || {};
const fullUrl = url.startsWith("http") ? url : `http://localhost:3000${url}`;
const reqHeaders: Record<string, string> = { ...headers };
if (sandboxUserId) {
reqHeaders["x-sandbox-user-id"] = sandboxUserId;
}
const init: { method: string; headers: Record<string, string>; body?: string } = {
method,
headers: reqHeaders,
};
if (body) {
init.body = JSON.stringify(body);
reqHeaders["content-type"] = "application/json";
}
return new NextRequest(fullUrl, init);
}
export async function parseResponse(response: Response) {
const json = await response.json();
return { status: response.status, json };
}
```
### Writing Regression Tests
The key principle: **write tests for bugs that were found, not for code that works**.
```typescript
// __tests__/api/user/profile.test.ts
import { describe, it, expect } from "vitest";
import { createTestRequest, parseResponse } from "../../helpers";
import { GET, PATCH } from "@/app/api/user/profile/route";
// Define the contract — what fields MUST be in the response
const REQUIRED_FIELDS = [
"id",
"email",
"full_name",
"phone",
"role",
"created_at",
"avatar_url",
"notification_settings", // ← Added after bug found it missing
];
describe("GET /api/user/profile", () => {
it("returns all required fields", async () => {
const req = createTestRequest("/api/user/profile");
const res = await GET(req);
const { status, json } = await parseResponse(res);
expect(status).toBe(200);
for (const field of REQUIRED_FIELDS) {
expect(json.data).toHaveProperty(field);
}
});
// Regression test — this exact bug was introduced by AI 4 times
it("notification_settings is not undefined (BUG-R1 regression)", async () => {
const req = createTestRequest("/api/user/profile");
const res = await GET(req);
const { json } = await parseResponse(res);
expect("notification_settings" in json.data).toBe(true);
const ns = json.data.notification_settings;
expect(ns === null || typeof ns === "object").toBe(true);
});
});
```
### Testing Sandbox/Production Parity
The most common AI regression: fixing production path but forgetting sandbox path (or vice versa).
```typescript
// Test that sandbox responses match the expected contract
describe("GET /api/user/messages (conversation list)", () => {
it("includes partner_name in sandbox mode", async () => {
const req = createTestRequest("/api/user/messages", {
sandboxUserId: "user-001",
});
const res = await GET(req);
const { json } = await parseResponse(res);
// This caught a bug where partner_name was added
// to production path but not sandbox path
if (json.data.length > 0) {
for (const conv of json.data) {
expect("partner_name" in conv).toBe(true);
}
}
});
});
```
## Integrating Tests into Bug-Check Workflow
### Custom Command Definition
```markdown
<!-- .gemini/commands/bug-check.md -->
# Bug Check
## Step 1: Automated Tests (mandatory, cannot skip)
Run these commands FIRST before any code review:
npm run test # Vitest test suite
npm run build # TypeScript type check + build
- If tests fail → report as highest priority bug
- If build fails → report type errors as highest priority
- Only proceed to Step 2 if both pass
## Step 2: Code Review (AI review)
1. Sandbox / production path consistency
2. API response shape matches frontend expectations
3. SELECT clause completeness
4. Error handling with rollback
5. Optimistic update race conditions
## Step 3: For each bug fixed, propose a regression test
```
### The Workflow
```
User: "バグチェックして" (or "/bug-check")
│
├─ Step 1: npm run test
│ ├─ FAIL → Bug found mechanically (no AI judgment needed)
│ └─ PASS → Continue
│
├─ Step 2: npm run build
│ ├─ FAIL → Type error found mechanically
│ └─ PASS → Continue
│
├─ Step 3: AI code review (with known blind spots in mind)
│ └─ Findings reported
│
└─ Step 4: For each fix, write a regression test
└─ Next bug-check catches if fix breaks
```
## Common AI Regression Patterns
### Pattern 1: Sandbox/Production Path Mismatch
**Frequency**: Most common (observed in 3 out of 4 regressions)
```typescript
// ❌ AI adds field to production path only
if (isSandboxMode()) {
return { data: { id, email, name } }; // Missing new field
}
// Production path
return { data: { id, email, name, notification_settings } };
// ✅ Both paths must return the same shape
if (isSandboxMode()) {
return { data: { id, email, name, notification_settings: null } };
}
return { data: { id, email, name, notification_settings } };
```
**Test to catch it**:
```typescript
it("sandbox and production return same fields", async () => {
// In test env, sandbox mode is forced ON
const res = await GET(createTestRequest("/api/user/profile"));
const { json } = await parseResponse(res);
for (const field of REQUIRED_FIELDS) {
expect(json.data).toHaveProperty(field);
}
});
```
### Pattern 2: SELECT Clause Omission
**Frequency**: Common with Supabase/Prisma when adding new columns
```typescript
// ❌ New column added to response but not to SELECT
const { data } = await supabase
.from("users")
.select("id, email, name") // notification_settings not here
.single();
return { data: { ...data, notification_settings: data.notification_settings } };
// → notification_settings is always undefined
// ✅ Use SELECT * or explicitly include new columns
const { data } = await supabase
.from("users")
.select("*")
.single();
```
### Pattern 3: Error State Leakage
**Frequency**: Moderate — when adding error handling to existing components
```typescript
// ❌ Error state set but old data not cleared
catch (err) {
setError("Failed to load");
// reservations still shows data from previous tab!
}
// ✅ Clear related state on error
catch (err) {
setReservations([]); // Clear stale data
setError("Failed to load");
}
```
### Pattern 4: Optimistic Update Without Proper Rollback
```typescript
// ❌ No rollback on failure
const handleRemove = async (id: string) => {
setItems(prev => prev.filter(i => i.id !== id));
await fetch(`/api/items/${id}`, { method: "DELETE" });
// If API fails, item is gone from UI but still in DB
};
// ✅ Capture previous state and rollback on failure
const handleRemove = async (id: string) => {
const prevItems = [...items];
setItems(prev => prev.filter(i => i.id !== id));
try {
const res = await fetch(`/api/items/${id}`, { method: "DELETE" });
if (!res.ok) throw new Error("API error");
} catch {
setItems(prevItems); // Rollback
alert("削除に失敗しました");
}
};
```
## Strategy: Test Where Bugs Were Found
Don't aim for 100% coverage. Instead:
```
Bug found in /api/user/profile → Write test for profile API
Bug found in /api/user/messages → Write test for messages API
Bug found in /api/user/favorites → Write test for favorites API
No bug in /api/user/notifications → Don't write test (yet)
```
**Why this works with AI development:**
1. AI tends to make the **same category of mistake** repeatedly
2. Bugs cluster in complex areas (auth, multi-path logic, state management)
3. Once tested, that exact regression **cannot happen again**
4. Test count grows organically with bug fixes — no wasted effort
## Quick Reference
| AI Regression Pattern | Test Strategy | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Sandbox/production mismatch | Assert same response shape in sandbox mode | 🔴 High |
| SELECT clause omission | Assert all required fields in response | 🔴 High |
| Error state leakage | Assert state cleanup on error | 🟡 Medium |
| Missing rollback | Assert state restored on API failure | 🟡 Medium |
| Type cast masking null | Assert field is not undefined | 🟡 Medium |
## DO / DON'T
**DO:**
- Write tests immediately after finding a bug (before fixing it if possible)
- Test the API response shape, not the implementation
- Run tests as the first step of every bug-check
- Keep tests fast (< 1 second total with sandbox mode)
- Name tests after the bug they prevent (e.g., "BUG-R1 regression")
**DON'T:**
- Write tests for code that has never had a bug
- Trust AI self-review as a substitute for automated tests
- Skip sandbox path testing because "it's just mock data"
- Write integration tests when unit tests suffice
- Aim for coverage percentage — aim for regression preventionRelated Skills
swift-protocol-di-testing
Protocol-based dependency injection for testable Swift code — mock file system, network, and external APIs using focused protocols and Swift Testing.
rust-testing
Rust testing patterns including unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, and coverage. Follows TDD methodology.
python-testing
Python testing strategies using pytest, TDD methodology, fixtures, mocking, parametrization, and coverage requirements.
perl-testing
Perl testing patterns using Test2::V0, Test::More, prove runner, mocking, coverage with Devel::Cover, and TDD methodology.
kotlin-testing
Kotlin testing patterns with Kotest, MockK, coroutine testing, property-based testing, and Kover coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Kotlin practices.
golang-testing
Go testing patterns including table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices.
e2e-testing
Playwright E2E testing patterns, Page Object Model, configuration, CI/CD integration, artifact management, and flaky test strategies.
csharp-testing
C# and .NET testing patterns with xUnit, FluentAssertions, mocking, integration tests, and test organization best practices.
cpp-testing
Use only when writing/updating/fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failing or flaky tests, or adding coverage/sanitizers.
x-api
X/Twitter API integration for posting tweets, threads, reading timelines, search, and analytics. Covers OAuth auth patterns, rate limits, and platform-native content posting. Use when the user wants to interact with X programmatically.
workspace-surface-audit
Audit the active repo, MCP servers, plugins, connectors, env surfaces, and harness setup, then recommend the highest-value ECC-native skills, hooks, agents, and operator workflows. Use when the user wants help setting up Gemini CLI or understanding what capabilities are actually available in their environment.
visa-doc-translate
Translate visa application documents (images) to English and create a bilingual PDF with original and translation