pytest-code-review

$npx mdskill add existential-birds/beagle/pytest-code-review

Reviews pytest test code for async, fixtures, parametrize, and mocking.

  • Identifies issues in test_*.py and conftest.py files.
  • References async testing, fixtures, parametrize, and mocking guides.
  • Checks async patterns, fixture cleanup, and mock import paths.
  • Outputs structured findings with file paths and specific references.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/pytest-code-reviewView on GitHub ↗
---
name: pytest-code-review
description: Reviews pytest test code for async patterns, fixtures, parametrize, and mocking. Use when reviewing test_*.py files, checking async test functions, fixture usage, or mock patterns.
---

# Pytest Code Review

## Quick Reference

| Issue Type | Reference |
|------------|-----------|
| async def test_*, AsyncMock, await patterns | [references/async-testing.md](references/async-testing.md) |
| conftest.py, factory fixtures, scope, cleanup | [references/fixtures.md](references/fixtures.md) |
| @pytest.mark.parametrize, DRY patterns | [references/parametrize.md](references/parametrize.md) |
| AsyncMock tracking, patch patterns, when to mock | [references/mocking.md](references/mocking.md) |

## Review gates

Work in order. Do not assert pytest-specific problems until each applicable gate passes.

1. **Scoped files** — **Pass when:** You list every `test_*.py` and any `conftest.py` you will cite; no findings for files outside that list.
2. **Async vs sync** — **Pass when:** Per scoped file, you note whether it uses `async def test_*` / `await`; if yes, open [references/async-testing.md](references/async-testing.md) before criticizing async usage.
3. **Fixtures** — **Pass when:** If shared setup matters, you name the `conftest.py` path(s) or state none; for yield fixtures, confirm cleanup exists before claiming resource leaks.
4. **patch / mocks** — **Pass when:** For any `patch` or mock critique, you give the import path where the symbol is **used** (call site), or mark N/A; open [references/mocking.md](references/mocking.md) when mocking is central to the review.
5. **Findings** — **Pass when:** Each finding includes a file path and line(s) or test node id, not a generic rule restatement.

## Review Checklist

- [ ] Test functions are `async def test_*` for async code under test
- [ ] AsyncMock used for async dependencies, not Mock
- [ ] All async mocks and coroutines are awaited
- [ ] Fixtures in conftest.py for shared setup
- [ ] Fixture scope appropriate (function, class, module, session)
- [ ] Yield fixtures have proper cleanup in finally block
- [ ] @pytest.mark.parametrize for similar test cases
- [ ] No duplicated test logic across multiple test functions
- [ ] Mocks track calls properly (assert_called_once_with)
- [ ] patch() targets correct location (where used, not defined)
- [ ] No mocking of internals that should be tested
- [ ] Test isolation (no shared mutable state between tests)

## When to Load References

- Reviewing async test functions → async-testing.md
- Reviewing fixtures or conftest.py → fixtures.md
- Reviewing similar test cases → parametrize.md
- Reviewing mocks and patches → mocking.md

## Review Questions

1. Are all async functions tested with async def test_*?
2. Are fixtures properly scoped with appropriate cleanup?
3. Can similar test cases be parametrized to reduce duplication?
4. Are mocks tracking calls and used at the right locations?

More from existential-birds/beagle

SkillDescription
adr-decision-extractionUse when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit \"[ADR]\" tags. Triggers on \"what decisions did we make\", \"extract decisions from this chat\", \"find the choices in our discussion\", or \"summarize architectural decisions\". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents \u2014 use adr-writing or write-adr for that.
adr-writingUse when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on \"write the ADR\", \"format as MADR\", \"check ADR quality\", \"mark gaps in ADR\". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).
agent-architecture-analysisUse when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on \"analyze agent architecture\", \"12-factor audit\", \"how compliant is this agent\", or \"evaluate this LLM app\". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists \u2014 this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.
app-intents-code-reviewReviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.
artifact-analysisUse when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: \"analyze these docs\", \"scan my project for context\", \"read the docs folder\", \"summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/\", \"extract context from docs/\", \"what's in this folder\", \"go read everything in X and tell me what's there\". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups (\"find this function\", \"search the repo\"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.
axum-code-reviewReviews axum web framework code for routing patterns, extractor usage, middleware, state management, and error handling. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses axum, tower, or hyper for HTTP services. Covers axum 0.7+ patterns including State, Path, Query, Json extractors.
brainstorm-beagleUse when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: \"brainstorm this\", \"I have an idea for...\", \"help me think through this project\", \"what should I build\", \"spec this out\". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews \u2014 produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
bubbletea-code-reviewReviews BubbleTea TUI code for proper Elm architecture, model/update/view patterns, and Lipgloss styling. Use when reviewing terminal UI code using charmbracelet/bubbletea.
cloudkit-code-reviewReviews CloudKit code for container setup, record handling, subscriptions, and sharing patterns. Use when reviewing code with import CloudKit, CKContainer, CKRecord, CKShare, or CKSubscription.
combine-code-reviewReviews Combine framework code for memory leaks, operator misuse, and error handling. Use when reviewing code with import Combine, AnyPublisher, @Published, PassthroughSubject, or CurrentValueSubject.