mcpField
P
property-based-testing

property-based-testing

github.com/trailofbitsTesting & quality7.9k7.1k installsUpdated today
Repository

About property-based-testing

A guidance skill for applying property-based testing when code has testable rules such as invariants, roundtrips, or reference results. It helps developers choose meaningful properties, avoid vacuous tests, and decide when this approach is unsuitable.

Key features

  1. 01Catalog of property patterns
  2. 02Guidance for generating test inputs
  3. 03Checks for tautological and vacuous tests
  4. 04Advice on refactoring to expose properties
  5. 05References for reviewing failures and libraries

Use cases

  1. 01Designing properties for serialization or conversion
  2. 02Reviewing an existing property-based test suite
  3. 03Investigating a failing generated test
  4. 04Deciding whether code is a good PBT candidate

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/trailofbits/skills --skill property-based-testing

After installing, type/property-based-testingin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

README.md
agents/
openai.yaml
assets/
trail-of-bits-mark.svg
references/
generating.md
interpreting-failures.md
libraries.md
refactoring.md
reviewing.md

Details

From the project README

Property-Based Testing

An example test asserts one point. A property asserts a rule over the whole input domain and lets the generator hunt for the counterexample. That trade is worth making when the code has an algebraic shape — an inverse, an invariant, an oracle — and not otherwise. Code with no such shape gets example tests; saying so is a valid outcome.

Check first whether the shape is missing or merely buried. A calculation wrapped in I/O, a string built by concatenation, an in-place mutation — each has a property and no seam to assert it through. See references/refactoring.md before concluding there is nothing to assert.

Property catalog

PropertyFormulaWhere it applies
Roundtripdecode(encode(x)) == xSerialization, conversion pairs
Inversef(g(x)) == xencrypt/decrypt, compress/decompress
Oraclenew(x) == reference(x)Optimization, refactoring, reimplementation
Idempotencef(f(x)) == f(x)Normalization, formatting, sorting
InvariantHolds before and afterAny transformation, contract state
Easy to verifyis_sorted(sort(x))Complex algorithms with cheap checkers
Commutativityf(a, b) == f(b, a)Binary and set operations
Associativityf(f(a,b), c) == f(a, f(b,c))Combining operations
Identityf(x, e) == xOperations with a neutral element

Strength ordering, weakest to strongest: no crash → type preservation → invariant → idempotence → roundtrip / oracle.

Assert the strongest property the code supports. "No crash" alone rarely justifies the dependency — if that is all you can find, either a small rearrangement exposes something stronger, or the honest report is that this code is a poor PBT candidate. Rule out the first before settling for the second.

The two ways a property test asserts nothing

  • Tautology. assert add(a, b) == a + b restates the implementation; no bug they share can fail it. Pick a property that constrains the function without recomputing it. Note the exception: f(x) == f(x) is a genuine determinism property when f is not obviously pure — serializers over dicts or sets, hashing, anything reading the clock.
  • Vacuity. assume() that filters out nearly every input passes without exercising anything, and self-contradictory assume() passes having run zero cases. Push constraints into the strategy so the generator produces valid inputs directly.

Where to look next

Load the one that matches the task in front of you:

TaskFile
Writing new tests, designing strategiesreferences/generating.md
The code has no property to assert yetreferences/refactoring.md
Reviewing existing property testsreferences/reviewing.md
A property test just failedreferences/interpreting-failures.md
Library choice, Echidna and Medusareferences/libraries.md

Introducing PBT to a project that lacks it

If the project already uses a PBT library, just write the tests in it. If it does not, adding one is a dependency decision that belongs to the user — offer it once with the specific property you would write, and take the answer either way.

Comments

Markdown supported