Assertion Diversity Analysis

Workflow

Step 1: Detect language and load extension

Identify the target codebase's language and test framework. Call the test-analysis-extensions skill and read the matching extension file (e.g., extensions/dotnet.md for .NET, extensions/python.md for pytest, extensions/typescript.md for Jest/Vitest, extensions/go.md for Go). The extension file lists the framework-specific assertion APIs you will classify in Step 3.

Step 2: Gather the test code

Read all test files the user provides. If the user points to a directory or project, scan for all test files using the markers in the language extension file (e.g., [TestMethod] for MSTest, def test_* for pytest, it() / test() for Jest, func TestXxx for Go).

Step 3: Classify every assertion

For each test method, identify all assertions and classify them into these language-neutral categories:

| Category | What it verifies | Examples across languages | |----------|------------------|----------------------------| | Equality | Return value matches expected | Assert.AreEqual (MSTest), Assert.Equal (xUnit), assert x == y (pytest), expect(x).toBe(y) (Jest), assertEquals (JUnit), if got != want { t.Error... } / assert.Equal(t, want, got) (Go), x shouldBe y (Kotest), Should -Be (Pester), EXPECT_EQ (GoogleTest) | | Boolean | Condition holds | Assert.IsTrue, assert flag (Python), expect(x).toBeTruthy() (Jest), assertTrue (JUnit), assert.True(t, ok) (testify), x.shouldBeTrue() (Kotest), Should -BeTrue (Pester), EXPECT_TRUE | | Null / None / Nil | Presence/absence of value | Assert.IsNull (.NET), assert x is None (pytest), expect(x).toBeNull() (Jest), assertNull (JUnit), assert.Nil(t, v) (testify), XCTAssertNil (XCTest), Should -BeNullOrEmpty (Pester) | | Exception / Error | Error handling behavior | Assert.Throws<T>(), pytest.raises(E), expect(fn).toThrow(E), assertThrows<E>, assert.Error(t, err) / assert.ErrorIs, #[should_panic] (Rust), XCTAssertThrowsError, Should -Throw, EXPECT_THROW | | Type checks | Runtime type correctness | Assert.IsInstanceOfType, assert isinstance(x, T), expect(x).toBeInstanceOf(T), assertInstanceOf, assert.IsType(t, T{}, v), assert!(matches!(value, Pattern)) (Rust), Should -BeOfType | | String | Text content and format | StringAssert.Contains, assert sub in s, expect(s).toMatch(/x/), assertTrue(s.contains(...)), assert.Contains(t, s, sub), s shouldContain sub, Should -Match, EXPECT_THAT(s, HasSubstr(...)) | | Collection | Collection contents and structure | CollectionAssert.Contains, assert item in collection, expect(arr).toContain(x), assertIterableEquals, assert.Contains(t, slice, item), col shouldContainExactly listOf(...), Should -Contain, EXPECT_THAT(c, ElementsAre(...)) | | Comparison | Ordering and magnitude | Assert.IsTrue(x > y), Is.GreaterThan, assert x > y, expect(x).toBeGreaterThan(y), assertTrue(x > y), assert.Greater(t, x, y) (testify) | | Approximate | Floating-point or tolerance-based | Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual, delta), pytest.approx(y), expect(x).toBeCloseTo(y), assertEquals(x, y, delta), assert.InDelta(t, x, y, delta), EXPECT_NEAR, EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ | | Negative | What should NOT happen | Assert.AreNotEqual, assert x != y, expect(x).not.toBe(y), assertNotEquals, assert.NotEqual(t, x, y), refute (Minitest / Ruby), Should -Not -Be | | State / Side-effect | State transitions and side effects | Assertions on object properties after mutation; mock-call verifications: mock.Verify(...) (Moq), mock_method.assert_called_with(...) (Python unittest.mock), expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledWith(...) (Jest), verify(mock).method(...) (Mockito), Should -Invoke (Pester), expect { code }.to change(obj, :attr) (RSpec) | | Structural / Deep | Deep object correctness | Assert.AreEqual with rich-equality types, assertThat(obj).usingRecursiveComparison() (AssertJ), .toEqual({...}) (Jest deep equality), cmp.Diff (Go go-cmp), snapshot tests (.toMatchSnapshot(), syrupy, SnapshotTesting), assertThat(col).extracting(...) (AssertJ chains) |

A single assertion can belong to multiple categories (e.g., Assert.AreNotEqual is both Equality and Negative; expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledWith(...) is both State/Side-effect and a specific-call assertion).

Read the loaded language extension file for the exact framework-specific list of assertion APIs.

Step 4: Compute metrics

Calculate these metrics for the test suite:

#### Per-test metrics

• Assertion count: Number of assertions in each test method
• Assertion categories: Which categories each test uses

#### Suite-wide metrics

• Average assertions per test: Total assertions / total test methods
• Assertion type spread: Number of distinct assertion categories used across the suite (out of 12)
• Tests with zero assertions: Count and percentage of test methods with no assertions at all
• Tests with only trivial assertions: Count and percentage of tests where every assertion is only a null check or Assert.IsTrue(true) — trivial means no meaningful value verification
• Tests with self-referential assertions: Count and percentage of tests whose assertions compare an input to a round-tripped or identity-transformed version of itself (e.g., Assert.AreEqual(input, Parse(input.ToString()))) or assert a field against itself (Assert.AreEqual(dto.Name, dto.Name)). These are tautological — they verify the plumbing, not the behavior.
• Tests with negative assertions: Count and percentage (target: at least 10% of tests should verify what should NOT happen)
• Tests with exception assertions: Count and percentage
• Tests with state/side-effect assertions: Count and percentage
• Tests with structural/deep assertions: Count and percentage
• Single-category tests: Count and percentage of tests that use only one assertion category

Step 5: Apply calibration rules

Before reporting, calibrate findings:

• Trivial means truly trivial. A null/None/nil check alone is trivial (Assert.IsNotNull(result), assert result is not None, expect(x).toBeDefined()). But a null check followed by a meaningful value assertion is not trivial — the null check is a guard before the real assertion. Only flag a test as "trivial" if it has no meaningful value assertions.
• Boolean assertions checking meaningful conditions are not trivial. Assert.IsTrue(result.IsValid) / assert result.is_valid / expect(result.isValid).toBe(true) check a specific property — these are Boolean assertions, not trivial ones. Always-true assertions (Assert.IsTrue(true), assert True, expect(true).toBe(true)) are trivial.
• Consider the test's intent. A test for a void method that verifies state change on a dependency is legitimate even if it only uses one Boolean assertion.
• Exception tests are inherently low-assertion-count. Assert.ThrowsException<T>(() => ...) / with pytest.raises(E): ... / expect(fn).toThrow(E) / #[should_panic] may be the only assertion — that's fine for exception-focused tests. Don't penalize them for low assertion count.
• Mock-call verifications and bare assertion forms count. Treat verify(mock).method(...) (Mockito), expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledWith(...) (Jest), Should -Invoke (Pester), bare assert (pytest), if got != want { t.Errorf(...) } (Go) all as real assertions of the appropriate category. Do not treat them as missing-framework-API smells.
• Snapshot assertions (.toMatchSnapshot(), syrupy, SnapshotTesting) count as Structural/Deep assertions. Flag stale or never-updated snapshots separately.
• Property-based tests (@given Hypothesis, proptest!, forAll Kotest) generate assertions implicitly through generated cases — count the inner assertion logic, not the outer scaffold.
• Don't conflate diversity with volume. A test with 20 equality assertions has high volume but low diversity. A test with one equality, one null check, and one exception assertion has low volume but good diversity.
• Self-referential assertions are not meaningful equality checks. Asserting that an output equals an input round-trip looks like a real equality assertion but is tautological when the operation under test is expected to be identity. Flag these separately from normal equality assertions. If the test's *purpose* is to verify a round-trip (serialize/deserialize, encode/decode), the assertion is valid — but it should be accompanied by assertions on non-trivial inputs that exercise the transformation.
• If assertions are well-diversified, say so. A report concluding the suite has good diversity is perfectly valid.

Step 6: Report findings

Scale the report depth to the size and complexity of the suite. The structure below is the full template for a substantial suite (roughly 15+ tests or a multi-file project). For a small or simple input (a single file with only a handful of tests), do not emit every section — a padded multi-section dashboard on a trivial input reads as noise and buries the answer. Instead, answer the user's question directly and concisely: which tests are assertion-free or trivial-only, the overall assertion-quality verdict, and concrete recommendations (still distinguishing intentional smoke tests from tests masquerading as real verification). Use only the sections that carry real signal for the input at hand; a short metric summary plus the assertion-free list and recommendations is often enough. Never omit the rubric-relevant substance (assertion-free/trivial identification, the quality verdict, and concrete recommendations) — only trim structural overhead that adds no information.

Present the analysis in this structure:

1. Summary Dashboard — A quick-reference table of key metrics:

`` | Metric | Value | Assessment | |-------------------------------|--------|------------| | Total tests | 25 | — | | Average assertions per test | 2.4 | Moderate | | Assertion type spread | 5/12 | Low | | Tests with zero assertions | 3 (12%)| Concerning | | Tests with only trivial asserts | 4 (16%)| Acceptable | | Tests with negative assertions | 2 (8%) | Below target | | Single-category tests | 15 (60%)| High | ``

1. Category Breakdown — For each assertion category, show:

- How many tests use it - Representative examples from the code - Whether it's overused or underused relative to the code under test

1. Gap Analysis — Based on the production code (if available), identify:

- Behaviors that are tested but only with equality checks - Error paths with no exception assertions - State-changing methods with no state verification - Collections returned but never checked for contents

1. Recommendations — Prioritized list of improvements:

- Which tests would benefit most from additional assertion types - Which assertion categories are missing and why they matter - Concrete examples of assertions that could be added

1. Assertion-free tests — If any exist, list each one with its method name and what it appears to be testing, so the user can decide whether to add assertions or mark them as intentional smoke tests.

Related skills