tests-with-teeth — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited tests-with-teeth (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
A test exists to fail when the thing it covers breaks. If you could delete the feature and the test stays green, it protects nothing. It's worse than no test, because it looks like coverage. Before accepting any test, run it through five questions.
You're testing a discount function. The test: applyDiscount(cart) returns a number >= 0. It passes. It's hollow. It passes whether the discount is 10%, 0%, or the function just returns the original total. Now make it distinguish: a $100 cart with a 10% code should return exactly $90. Delete the discount math and it returns $100, and the test fails. That version has teeth.
| Test smell | Why it's hollow |
|---|---|
| Asserts "does not crash" | Not crashing isn't correctness. |
| Asserts a value >= 0 / not null | Passes for almost any implementation. |
| Setup uses an input that triggers an early return | The assertion is never reached. |
| Same value passed for two different inputs | Can't tell which one the code used. |
| Only an end-to-end path, novel logic never tested alone | A compensating bug can hide. |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.