Curated library of 28 atomic skills and 9 personas for Ruby on Rails development. Organized by category: testing, code-quality, engines, infrastructure, api, context, and personas. Covers code review, architecture, security, testing (RSpec), engines, Hotwire, and TDD automation. Shared Ruby skills (YARD docs, DDD, service objects) have moved to ruby-core-skills.
93
95%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
93%
1.16xAverage score across 28 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
| Change type | First spec | Path | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| API contract, params, status code, JSON shape | Request spec | spec/requests/ | Proves the real HTTP contract |
| Domain rule on a cohesive record or value object | Model spec | spec/models/ | Fast feedback on domain behavior |
| Multi-step orchestration across collaborators | Service spec | spec/services/ | Focuses on the workflow boundary |
| Enqueue/run/retry/discard behavior | Job spec | spec/jobs/ | Captures async semantics directly |
| Critical Turbo/Stimulus or browser-visible flow | System spec | spec/system/ | Use only when browser interaction is the real risk |
| Engine routing, generators, host integration | Engine spec | spec/requests/ or engine path | Normal app specs miss engine wiring — see test-engine |
| Bug fix | Reproduction spec | Where the bug is observed | Proves the fix and prevents regression |
CHECKPOINT: Test Design Review
1. Present: Show the failing spec(s) written
2. Ask:
- Does this test cover the right behavior?
- Is the boundary correct (request vs service vs model)?
- Are the most important edge cases represented?
- Is the failure reason correct (feature missing, not setup error)?
3. Confirm: Only proceed to implementation once test design is approved.Start at the highest-value boundary that proves the behavior with the least unnecessary setup.
spec/requests/..., spec/services/..., spec/jobs/..., spec/models/...).write-tests for general spec writing, test-service for service-layer coverage, or test-engine for engine integration.# Behavior: POST /orders validates params and returns 201 with JSON payload
# First slice: request spec
# Suggested path: spec/requests/orders/create_spec.rb
RSpec.describe "POST /orders", type: :request do
let(:user) { create(:user) }
let(:valid_params) { { order: { product_id: create(:product).id, quantity: 1 } } }
before { sign_in user }
it "creates an order and returns 201" do
post orders_path, params: valid_params, as: :json
expect(response).to have_http_status(:created)
expect(response.parsed_body["id"]).to be_present
end
end# Behavior: Orders::CreateOrder validates inventory, persists, and enqueues follow-up work
# First slice: service spec
# Suggested path: spec/services/orders/create_order_spec.rb
RSpec.describe Orders::CreateOrder do
subject(:result) { described_class.call(user: user, product: product, quantity: 1) }
let(:user) { create(:user) }
let(:product) { create(:product, stock: 5) }
it "returns a successful result with the new order" do
expect(result).to be_success
expect(result.order).to be_persisted
end
end| Pitfall | What to do |
|---|---|
| Starting with a PORO spec because it is easy | Easy ≠ high-signal — choose the boundary that proves the real behavior |
| Writing three spec types before running any | Pick one slice, run it, prove the failure, then proceed |
| Defaulting to one spec type for everything | Match the spec type to the layer where the real risk lives (HTTP, domain, async, browser) |
| Jumping to system specs too early | Reserve for critical browser flows that lower layers cannot prove |
Load these files only when their specific content is needed:
When completing test planning, produce a brief structured summary and populate the full plan using assets/first_slice_template.md. The summary must cover:
.tessl-plugin
evals
scenario-1
scenario-2
scenario-3
scenario-4
scenario-5
scenario-6
scenario-7
scenario-8
scenario-9
scenario-10
scenario-11
scenario-12
scenario-13
scenario-14
scenario-15
scenario-16
scenario-17
scenario-18
scenario-19
scenario-20
scenario-21
scenario-22
scenario-23
scenario-24
scenario-25
scenario-26
scenario-27
scenario-28
skills
api
generate-api-collection
implement-graphql
code-quality
apply-code-conventions
apply-stack-conventions
assets
snippets
code-review
refactor-code
review-architecture
security-check
context
load-context
setup-environment
engines
create-engine
create-engine-installer
document-engine
extract-engine
release-engine
review-engine
test-engine
upgrade-engine
infrastructure
implement-background-job
implement-hotwire
optimize-performance
review-migration
seed-database
version-api
personas
testing
plan-tests
test-service