---

name: test-ambiguity-detector description: Analyze test cases against specifications to find ambiguous assumptions. Use when tests might be making assumptions not explicitly defined in the spec. Invoke with /test-ambiguity-detector .

Test Ambiguity Detector

Compare a test file against its specification to identify where tests assume behavior that the spec doesn't explicitly define.

Usage: /test-ambiguity-detector file_backup checkpoint_1

Purpose

Tests should verify spec-defined behavior, not invent requirements. This skill finds cases where:

• Tests assert specific behavior the spec is silent about
• Tests assume implementation details not mandated by spec
• Tests expect particular error messages/codes not specified
• Tests require specific ordering/formatting beyond spec requirements

---

Step 1: Gather Context

Read the spec and test files for the specified problem/checkpoint:

problems/{problem}/checkpoint_N.md
problems/{problem}/tests/test_checkpoint_N.py
problems/{problem}/tests/conftest.py        # Fixtures and test setup

Also check for test data:

problems/{problem}/tests/data/checkpoint_N/  # Test case data (if present)

---

Step 2: Catalog Spec Requirements

For each section of the spec, extract:

1. Explicit requirements - "MUST", "SHALL", specific values, exact formats
2. Implicit requirements - Reasonable inferences from context
3. Undefined behaviors - What the spec does NOT address

Create a mental checklist:

• Input validation rules (if any specified)
• Output format requirements (exact vs flexible)
• Error handling expectations (if any specified)
• Edge cases addressed (explicitly or by example)
• Processing order requirements
• Default values specified

---

Step 3: Analyze Each Test

For each test function or test case:

A. Identify the Assertion

What specific behavior does this test check?

• Return values
• Output format/content
• Side effects
• Error conditions
• State changes

B. Find Spec Support

Can you point to a specific spec line that mandates this behavior?

SUPPORTED: Spec says "must return error code 1" → test checks returncode == 1 UNSUPPORTED: Spec says "must return non-zero on error" → test checks returncode == 1

C. Classify the Assumption

Category	Example	Risk Level
Explicit	Spec says X, test checks X	None
Reasonable Inference	Spec implies X, test checks X	Low
Implementation Choice	Spec silent, test assumes X	HIGH
Contradiction	Spec says X, test checks Y	CRITICAL

---

Step 4: Report Findings

Generate a report in this format:

# Ambiguity Report: {problem} {checkpoint}

## Summary
- Total tests analyzed: N
- Potentially ambiguous: N
- Likely spec issues: N

## Ambiguous Test Assumptions

### 1. `test_function_name` (line X)

**Assertion**: [What the test checks]

**Spec says**: [Quote or "NOTHING - spec is silent"]

**Risk**: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

**Analysis**: [Why this is problematic]

**Recommendation**:
- [ ] Clarify in spec: [suggested text]
- [ ] OR relax test: [how to make less specific]
- [ ] OR remove test: [if testing undefined behavior]

---

### 2. `test_another_function` (line Y)
...

## Spec Gaps Identified

List behaviors tested but not defined in spec:
1. [Behavior] - should spec define this?
2. ...

## Recommendations

### For Spec Authors
- [Suggested clarifications]

### For Test Authors
- [Suggested test modifications]

---

Common Ambiguity Patterns

Error Handling

• Ambiguous: Spec says "return error" but test expects specific code/message
• Check: Does spec define error codes? Error message format?

Ordering

• Ambiguous: Spec says "process items" but test expects specific order
• Check: Does spec mandate sorting? Stable ordering?

Whitespace/Formatting

• Ambiguous: Spec shows example output, test requires exact formatting
• Check: Does spec say "must match exactly" or just "must contain"?

Empty/Null Inputs

• Ambiguous: Test expects specific behavior for empty input
• Check: Does spec address empty/null cases?

Boundary Values

• Ambiguous: Test checks behavior at 0, max, or edge values
• Check: Does spec define boundary behavior?

Field Ordering in JSON/YAML

• Ambiguous: Test expects fields in specific order
• Check: Does spec mandate field ordering?

Case Sensitivity

• Ambiguous: Test expects case-sensitive/insensitive matching
• Check: Does spec specify case handling?

---

Red Flags in Tests

Watch for these patterns that often indicate ambiguity:

# Specific error code not in spec
assert result.returncode == 42

# Exact error message not in spec
assert "invalid format" in result.stderr

# Specific field ordering
assert json.dumps(output) == '{"a":1,"b":2}'

# Implicit sorting expectations
assert results == sorted(results)

# Default value assumptions
assert config.get("timeout") == 30

# Specific exception types
with pytest.raises(ValueError):

---

Example Analysis

Given spec text:

Return non-zero exit code on invalid input.

And test:

def test_invalid_input():
    result = subprocess.run(...)
    assert result.returncode == 1  # <-- AMBIGUOUS!

Finding: Test expects exit code 1, but spec only says "non-zero". Valid implementations could return 2, 127, or any non-zero value.

Recommendation: Either:

• Clarify spec: "Return exit code 1 on invalid input"
• Relax test: assert result.returncode != 0

---

Recommended Tools for Lenient Tests

Fix preference: Make tests lenient > Remove tests >> Update spec

Many ambiguity issues can be solved by using flexible comparison tools instead of exact matching.

deepdiff - Flexible Object Comparison

from deepdiff import DeepDiff

# Instead of exact matching:
assert actual == expected  # FAILS on order, float precision, extra fields

# Use deepdiff to ignore irrelevant differences:
diff = DeepDiff(expected, actual,
    ignore_order=True,           # List/dict order doesn't matter
    significant_digits=5,         # Float precision tolerance
    exclude_paths=["root['id']"]  # Ignore fields not in spec
)
assert not diff, f"Meaningful differences: {diff}"

jsonschema - Structure Validation

from jsonschema import validate

# Instead of checking exact values:
assert output == {"status": "ok", "count": 5}  # Too strict!

# Validate structure matches spec requirements:
schema = {
    "type": "object",
    "required": ["status", "count"],  # Only what spec requires
    "properties": {
        "status": {"enum": ["ok", "error"]},
        "count": {"type": "integer", "minimum": 0}
    }
}
validate(instance=output, schema=schema)  # Accepts any valid structure

Normalization - Handle Formatting Differences

import json

def normalize(obj):
    """Normalize for comparison: sort keys, strip whitespace, lowercase strings."""
    if isinstance(obj, dict):
        return {k: normalize(v) for k, v in sorted(obj.items())}
    if isinstance(obj, list):
        return sorted([normalize(x) for x in obj], key=lambda x: json.dumps(x, sort_keys=True))
    if isinstance(obj, str):
        return obj.strip().lower()
    return obj

# Instead of exact string/JSON comparison:
assert json.dumps(actual) == json.dumps(expected)  # Fails on key order!

# Normalize first:
assert normalize(actual) == normalize(expected)

Combined Approach

def flexible_assert(actual, expected, ignore_fields=None):
    """Compare with maximum leniency for spec compliance."""
    diff = DeepDiff(
        normalize(expected),
        normalize(actual),
        ignore_order=True,
        exclude_paths=ignore_fields or [],
        significant_digits=5,
        ignore_string_case=True
    )
    assert not diff, f"Spec-relevant differences: {diff}"

# Usage: Only fails on meaningful differences
flexible_assert(actual, expected, ignore_fields=["root['timestamp']"])

When to Use Each Tool

Problem	Solution
Order doesn't match	deepdiff with ignore_order=True
Float precision differs	deepdiff with significant_digits=N
Extra fields in output	deepdiff with exclude_paths
Only structure matters	jsonschema validation
Whitespace/case differs	normalize() before comparing
Multiple issues	Combine all techniques

---

After Analysis

Summarize findings to the user with:

1. High-risk ambiguities that likely cause false failures
2. Spec gaps that should be addressed
3. Test modifications to reduce brittleness
4. Questions for spec authors to clarify intent