🧠 Test Case Generator Agent Specification¶

🎯 Purpose¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is responsible for the autonomous creation of structured, executable, and traceable test cases for:

🧪 Unit tests
🌐 Integration tests
🔄 End-to-End flows
📘 BDD scenarios
⚠️ Edge and error condition validations

Its mission is to ensure every use case, handler, adapter, and event produced by the factory is accompanied by a corresponding test plan and test implementation scaffold — ready for execution, validation, and review.

🧩 Strategic Role in the Factory¶

This agent:

Bridges the gap between architecture, implementation, and validation
Collaborates with the QA Engineer, Backend Developer, Frontend Developer, Bug Resolver, and Microservice Generator agents
Ensures test coverage and behavior are aligned with specifications, blueprints, and real execution paths
Enables quality enforcement through agent-validated traceable test metadata

🧠 The agent acts as the first line of defense against regressions and invalid logic — providing the foundation for automated quality gates in CI/CD pipelines and Studio dashboards.

📍 Position in Execution Flow¶

flowchart TD
    VisionBlueprint --> MicroserviceGenerator
    MicroserviceGenerator --> BackendDeveloper
    BackendDeveloper --> TestCaseGenerator
    TestCaseGenerator --> QAEngineer
    TestCaseGenerator --> PRAgent
    TestCaseGenerator --> TestCoverageValidator

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

✅ Activated after use case handlers and ports are scaffolded, and may trigger:

SpecFlow scenario creation
MSTest-based unit tests
Mock configuration stubs
BDD feature files with Given-When-Then patterns

🛠 Why This Agent Is Critical¶

Without It	With It
❌ Missing or partial test coverage	✅ Guaranteed test for each handler, adapter, and service
❌ Manual test writing delays delivery	✅ Automated test plan generation in seconds
❌ No trace from feature → test → handler	✅ Test coverage mapped via `trace_id`, `blueprint_id`
❌ Error-prone regression handling	✅ Edge case testing, negative scenario modeling
❌ Weak QA coordination	✅ QA agents and humans operate on agent-generated artifacts

🧠 Sample Use Case¶

Blueprint: usecase-0371 (CreateInvoice)

→ After handler and controller are scaffolded:

TestCaseGeneratorAgent
📦 Generates:
 - CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
 - InvoiceControllerTests.cs
 - create_invoice.feature (BDD)
 - test-metadata.yaml (trace-aligned)

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent enables ConnectSoft to:

Automate trace-aligned test coverage
Enforce test-first and validation-driven development
Support both human QA workflows and autonomous agent testing
Produce test artifacts ready for CI/CD, PR validation, and Studio dashboards
Align test execution with blueprint-defined behavior, roles, and expectations

It transforms raw handler scaffolds into validated, test-covered service units, ensuring resilience, correctness, and delivery confidence.

🏭 Strategic Position in the Factory¶

The Test Case Generator Agent occupies a pivotal point in the ConnectSoft AI Software Factory, positioned between code generation and quality validation. It is triggered automatically once a handler, port, adapter, or controller has been scaffolded — ensuring that testing becomes an integral, traceable output, not an afterthought.

🔁 Integration with Factory Workflow¶

flowchart TD
    VisionAgent --> Blueprint
    Blueprint --> MicroserviceGenerator
    MicroserviceGenerator --> BackendDeveloper
    BackendDeveloper --> UseCaseHandler
    UseCaseHandler --> TestCaseGeneratorAgent
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> TestMetadata
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> QAEngineerAgent
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> TestCoverageValidator
    TestMetadata --> PullRequestAgent

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

🔗 Core Integration Points¶

Upstream Agent	Provides	Example
Backend Developer Agent	Use case handler, DTOs	`CreateInvoiceHandler.cs`
Microservice Generator Agent	Scaffolded solution structure	`Tests/`, `UseCases/`, `Controllers/`
Application Architect Agent	Port and policy definitions	`IHandle<CreateInvoiceInput>`
QA Engineer Agent	Scenario mappings and validation rules	`qa-checklist.yaml`
Studio or Human Reviewer	Correction, customization of BDD features	`create_invoice.feature`

🔁 Downstream Consumers of Test Artifacts¶

Agent	Consumes	Purpose
QA Engineer Agent	`test-metadata.yaml`, `.feature` files	Regression plan, test grid
Pull Request Agent	Test case links, coverage indicators	PR annotations
Bug Resolver Agent	Reproducers, scenario runners	Uses generated tests for regression
Test Coverage Validator	Coverage metrics, assertion validation	Aggregated feedback loop
Studio	Interactive views for each test-to-trace map	Developer + QA UI hooks

🧠 Enrichment Role¶

The Test Case Generator Agent doesn’t just generate static code — it:

Adds 📎 trace_id, blueprint_id, and handler metadata to each test
Emits 📦 structured metadata files for test traceability
Links use cases to human-readable and BDD-format test scenarios
Aligns test case naming and structure with architectural contracts

🧱 Placement by Code Layer¶

Code Layer	Tests Generated
DomainModel	(if behavior exists): domain event test cases
ApplicationModel	Unit tests per handler, port, validator
InfrastructureModel	Adapter-level integration tests
ServiceModel	Controller tests, middleware edge-case tests

✅ All tests follow ConnectSoft Clean Architecture rules ✅ Test files are injected into corresponding *.UnitTests/ or *.Specs/ projects

📦 Generated File Locations¶

Artifact Type	Location
Unit Tests	`Tests/ServiceName.UnitTests/UseCases/*.cs`
Integration Tests	`Tests/ServiceName.IntegrationTests/*.cs`
BDD Specs	`Tests/ServiceName.Specs/Features/*.feature`
Test Metadata	`Tests/test-metadata.yaml`
Studio Snapshots	`Studio/test-preview/*.md`

🔁 Trigger Scenarios¶

Factory Event	Triggered Action
`UseCaseHandlerGenerated`	Scaffold MSTest-based test
`AdapterGeneratedEvent`	Add integration tests for that adapter
`PortWithRolesDefined`	Generate role-based BDD scenario
`MissingTestCoverageDetected`	Retry or emit correction plan
`Blueprint.TraceValidationStarted`	Inject test alignment markers

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is tightly integrated into the ConnectSoft assembly line:

It reacts to microservice, handler, and adapter creation
It orchestrates test generation across use case, integration, and behavioral levels
It emits machine- and human-readable artifacts
It closes the feedback loop between generation, coverage, QA, and human review

This agent ensures that testing is not a phase — it’s a productized, traceable output of the software factory.

📋 Responsibilities¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is responsible for generating complete, traceable, and structurally correct test artifacts across multiple levels of the software stack. Its primary goal is to ensure that every generated feature or handler has corresponding unit, integration, and behavioral tests — all aligned to the blueprint, trace ID, and service structure.

🎯 Key Responsibilities Breakdown¶

Responsibility	Description
1. Generate Unit Tests for Use Case Handlers	Create MSTest-based unit test classes for each `IHandle<T>` use case implementation.
2. Generate Validator Tests	For each `FluentValidation`-based validator, generate negative and positive test cases.
3. Generate Controller-Level Tests	Scaffold controller endpoint tests with mocked dependencies and coverage assertions.
4. Generate BDD `.feature` Files	Emit `Given-When-Then` style `.feature` files for QA alignment and test readability.
5. Create Edge and Negative Tests	Add tests for nulls, invalid input, business logic constraints, unauthorized access, etc.
6. Create Integration Test Stubs	Prepare test harnesses that simulate HTTP/gRPC calls to validate service behavior end-to-end.
7. Emit Test Metadata Files	Generate `test-metadata.yaml` mapping handlers → tests → trace IDs for CI/CD and QA agents.
8. Annotate Tests with Traceability Tags	Embed `trace_id`, `blueprint_id`, `handler_name` in all test class headers.
9. Integrate with Studio Snapshot System	Output developer-readable test summaries and snapshots for visual QA tools.
10. Support Retry and Correction Scenarios	Emit retry suggestions if validation fails or coverage is insufficient.

🧩 Test Artifacts the Agent Creates¶

Artifact	Description
`CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs`	Unit test class with all success and failure flows
`CreateInvoiceValidatorTests.cs`	Tests for `NotNull`, `GreaterThan`, etc.
`InvoiceControllerTests.cs`	Endpoint-level tests with mocked dependencies
`create_invoice.feature`	BDD file with functional scenario text
`test-metadata.yaml`	Maps all handlers to their corresponding tests
`TestCoverageSummary.md`	Markdown snapshot of test coverage and gaps

🧠 Example Responsibilities in Action¶

Given the following inputs:

Trace ID: invoice-2025-0143
Blueprint ID: usecase-9241
Handler: CreateInvoiceHandler

The agent will:

✅ Generate CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs with 3–5 scenarios
✅ Produce create_invoice.feature with 2–3 Gherkin-based scenarios
✅ Emit test-metadata.yaml linking this handler to those tests
✅ Auto-wire test project with MSTest and Coverlet support

📦 Integration into CI/CD and Studio¶

System	Output
CI/CD Pipelines	Test projects + coverage collectors ready to run
Studio Dashboards	Linked `.feature` scenarios and test snapshots
QA Agents	Artifacts for regression tracking and bug reproduction
Tech Lead Agent	Validation hooks for test/handler pairing completeness

🔄 Reactive Responsibilities (on Retry)¶

If validation fails (e.g., missing test for CancelInvoiceHandler), the agent will:

Re-scan UseCases/ folder
Identify missing test class
Re-trigger test generation pipeline
Annotate retry attempt in metadata

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent fulfills a core validation and assurance role in the AI Software Factory:

It translates implementation into test scaffolds
It ensures coverage and traceability through structured metadata
It empowers human QA, agent validation, and CI enforcement through proactive generation of intelligent, layered test artifacts

📥 Inputs¶

To generate accurate, aligned, and traceable test cases, the Test Case Generator Agent consumes a multi-source input context that includes:

Source code structures
Agent-emitted metadata
Domain models and blueprints
Runtime configuration files
Architectural decisions (ports, roles, expectations)

📦 Primary Input Categories¶

Input Type	Description	Example
Use Case Handlers	Code files implementing `IHandle<T>`	`CreateInvoiceHandler.cs`
Ports Configuration	Input/output port declarations	`input-ports.json`
DTOs and Validators	Classes with `FluentValidation` rules	`CreateInvoiceInput.cs`, `CreateInvoiceValidator.cs`
Controllers & Routing	REST/gRPC endpoints	`InvoiceController.cs`
Blueprint Metadata	Trace ID, blueprint ID, feature and security expectations	`blueprint_id: usecase-9241`
Trace Metadata	Identifiers from microservice generation phase	`trace_id: invoice-2025-0143`
Agent Events	e.g. `MicroserviceGeneratedEvent`, `HandlerScaffoldedEvent`	Used to trigger test generation
Role and Policy Maps	Security expectations from Application Architect Agent	`authorization-map.yaml`
Domain Events	Events triggered by handlers	`InvoiceCreated`, `PaymentConfirmed`
Example Payloads	Used for BDD generation and snapshot creation	`create-invoice.sample.json`
Service Configuration	Options pattern, feature flags, endpoint toggles	`InvoiceSettings.cs`, `appsettings.json`

🧠 Input Example: Ports Configuration¶

{
  "input_ports": [
    {
      "name": "CreateInvoice",
      "handler": "CreateInvoiceHandler",
      "dto": "CreateInvoiceInput",
      "roles": ["FinanceManager"],
      "events": ["InvoiceCreated"]
    }
  ]
}

→ Used to:

Generate handler test: CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
Apply role test: simulate unauthorized access
Create .feature scenarios with role and outcome variations

📄 Blueprint & Trace ID Context¶

From generation-metadata.yaml:

trace_id: invoice-2025-0143
blueprint_id: usecase-9241
aggregate: Invoice
features:
  - UseAuthorization
  - UseOpenTelemetry

→ Used to:

Tag generated tests with metadata
Activate auth-specific scenario generation
Enforce handler/test mapping for Tech Lead Agent validation

🔍 Controller Source Example¶

[HttpPost]
[Authorize(Roles = "FinanceManager")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([FromBody] CreateInvoiceInput input) {
    ...
}

→ Used to:

Assert [Authorize] is tested
Auto-generate integration test with 401, 403, 200 coverage

📘 Validator Class Input¶

public class CreateInvoiceValidator : AbstractValidator<CreateInvoiceInput>
{
    public CreateInvoiceValidator()
    {
        RuleFor(x => x.TotalAmount).GreaterThan(0);
        RuleFor(x => x.CustomerId).NotEmpty();
    }
}

→ Used to:

Generate success and failure test cases for boundary values
Emit test like TotalAmount_should_be_required

📁 Input Artifacts Summary¶

File	Used For
`*.cs` (handlers)	Test logic mapping
`*.Validator.cs`	Positive/negative test case generation
`.feature.sample`	Snapshot generation
`trace-validation-log.json`	Trace + handler binding
`authorization-map.yaml`	Security tests
`test-generation-config.yaml`	Optional overrides (e.g., skip certain handlers)

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent consumes a multi-layered input graph that includes:

📂 Source code artifacts
📑 Semantic metadata (trace, blueprint, role)
🔐 Security and policy maps
🧪 Sample payloads and agent messages

With these, it automatically generates test code that is meaningful, validated, and trace-aligned — ensuring that the factory’s output is safe, testable, and production-ready.

📤 Outputs¶

The Test Case Generator Agent emits a full suite of test artifacts, metadata, and traceable outputs to support execution, validation, QA, CI/CD pipelines, and Studio-based inspection.

These outputs are structured, aligned with the originating handler/controller, and embedded with factory-standard trace identifiers.

📦 Output Categories¶

Output Type	Description
Unit Tests	MSTest test classes for each handler and validator
Integration Tests	Endpoint-level tests simulating external input/output
BDD Feature Files	Human-readable `.feature` files for QA scenarios
Test Metadata	YAML/JSON map of handler-to-test relationships
Edge Case Tests	Tests for negative conditions and invalid input
Authorization Tests	Role- or claim-specific acceptance/rejection tests
Studio Snapshots	Markdown-formatted test summaries and expected outcomes
Trace Files	Trace ID–aligned metadata and coverage output

📁 Directory Output Example¶

Tests/
├── InvoiceService.UnitTests/
│   └── UseCases/
│       ├── CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
│       ├── CancelInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
│   └── Validators/
│       └── CreateInvoiceValidatorTests.cs
├── InvoiceService.IntegrationTests/
│   └── InvoiceControllerTests.cs
├── InvoiceService.Specs/
│   └── Features/
│       └── create_invoice.feature
│   └── Steps/
│       └── CreateInvoiceSteps.cs
├── test-metadata.yaml
└── trace-test-coverage.json

📘 Sample Output: Unit Test (MSTest)¶

[TestClass]
[TraceId("invoice-2025-0143")]
[BlueprintId("usecase-9241")]
public class CreateInvoiceHandlerTests
{
    [TestMethod]
    public async Task Handle_ShouldReturnSuccess_WhenValidInputProvided()
    {
        var handler = new CreateInvoiceHandler(...);
        var input = new CreateInvoiceInput { TotalAmount = 100, CustomerId = Guid.NewGuid() };

        var result = await handler.Handle(input);

        Assert.IsTrue(result.IsSuccess);
    }

    [TestMethod]
    public async Task Handle_ShouldThrow_WhenAmountIsZero()
    {
        ...
    }
}

📘 Sample Output: BDD `.feature`¶

Feature: Create Invoice

Scenario: Successful invoice creation
  Given a finance manager is authenticated
  When they submit a valid invoice
  Then the invoice is created
  And an "InvoiceCreated" event is published

Scenario: Unauthorized user
  Given a guest user
  When they attempt to create an invoice
  Then access is denied

✅ Linked to: CreateInvoiceSteps.cs with step definitions

📑 `test-metadata.yaml`¶

trace_id: invoice-2025-0143
blueprint_id: usecase-9241
tests:
  - handler: CreateInvoiceHandler
    unit_test: CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
    feature_file: create_invoice.feature
    validator_test: CreateInvoiceValidatorTests.cs
    roles_tested: ["FinanceManager"]
    negative_cases: 3
  - handler: CancelInvoiceHandler
    unit_test: CancelInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
    feature_file: cancel_invoice.feature

📈 Coverage Trace Output¶

{
  "trace_id": "invoice-2025-0143",
  "handler_coverage": {
    "CreateInvoiceHandler": {
      "unit_test": true,
      "integration_test": true,
      "feature_file": true,
      "coverage_percent": 93
    },
    "CancelInvoiceHandler": {
      "unit_test": true,
      "integration_test": false,
      "feature_file": false,
      "coverage_percent": 47
    }
  }
}

Used by: QA Agent, Tech Lead Agent, Studio dashboard

📄 Studio Snapshot Example (Markdown)¶

### 🧪 Test Summary: CreateInvoiceHandler

- ✅ Unit Test: ✔️ `CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs`
- ✅ Integration Test: ✔️ `InvoiceControllerTests.cs`
- ✅ BDD Scenario: ✔️ `create_invoice.feature`
- 🧪 Validator: `CreateInvoiceValidatorTests.cs`
- 🔐 Roles Covered: FinanceManager
- ❌ Edge Case Missing: InvalidCurrency

📎 Trace ID: `invoice-2025-0143`
📘 Blueprint: `usecase-9241`

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent produces:

✅ Test classes across unit, integration, and BDD layers
✅ Structured test metadata for trace and agent inspection
✅ Coverage artifacts for CI gates and QA regression planning
✅ Studio- and PR-ready markdown snapshots
✅ Fully executable test code aligned with ConnectSoft's Clean Architecture and factory traceability model

🔁 Process Flow (High-Level)¶

The Test Case Generator Agent operates in a structured, event-driven workflow, tightly coupled to the software generation pipeline. It listens to handler generation events, evaluates inputs, queries memory, and emits complete test artifacts for review, validation, and execution.

The process is modular, traceable, retryable, and observable, matching the principles of the ConnectSoft AI Software Factory.

🧬 High-Level Flow Diagram¶

flowchart TD
    A[Handler Scaffolding Event] --> B[Trigger Test Case Generator Agent]
    B --> C[Analyze Context + Inputs]
    C --> D[Extract Test Targets]
    D --> E[Generate Test Scenarios]
    E --> F[Emit Test Artifacts (.cs, .feature, .yaml)]
    F --> G[Validate Generated Tests]
    G --> H[Write to Memory + Git]
    H --> I[Emit Events + Notify QA / Studio]

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

🔁 Step-by-Step Flow Summary¶

Phase	Description
1. Triggering	Agent is activated by events like `HandlerScaffolded`, `ControllerGenerated`, `BlueprintUpdated`
2. Context Analysis	Reads trace ID, blueprint, handler structure, DTOs, validator, port config, and role policy
3. Target Extraction	Determines test targets: handler logic, validation, controller flow, role expectations
4. Scenario Generation	Uses SK skills to produce unit tests, integration stubs, `.feature` files
5. Artifact Emission	Creates files (`.cs`, `.yaml`, `.md`, `.feature`) and injects them into the solution structure
6. Validation	Confirms syntax, test count, trace alignment, naming convention, and coverage expectations
7. Persistence	Outputs saved to: file system, memory system, and optionally Git repo or PR context
8. Notification	Emits `TestArtifactsGenerated` and `TestCoverageAvailable` for other agents and Studio UI

🧠 Example Trigger and Execution¶

Event: HandlerScaffoldedEvent Module: PaymentsService Handler: CapturePaymentHandler Trace: payments-2025-0117

Agent behavior:

✅ Finds: CapturePaymentHandler.cs, CapturePaymentValidator.cs
✅ Generates:
- CapturePaymentHandlerTests.cs
- CapturePaymentValidatorTests.cs
- capture_payment.feature
- test-metadata.yaml
✅ Validates placeholder preservation, authorization cases
✅ Logs all actions under traceId: payments-2025-0117

🧠 Alternate Entry Points¶

The agent can also be activated by:

Trigger	Effect
`TestCoverageCheckRequested`	Rescans modules and adds missing test artifacts
`BlueprintCompletedEvent`	Backfills test cases from updated blueprint
`RetryTestGenerationRequested`	Reruns failed or incomplete generation process

🧠 Agent Guarantees¶

✅ All tests map to a handler or controller ✅ Each test file includes traceable metadata ✅ Test generation is repeatable, idempotent, and memory-enriched ✅ The process is observable (OpenTelemetry spans, event hooks)

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent follows a highly structured, clean, and orchestrated workflow:

Begins with handler generation
Ends with validated, trace-bound, executable test artifacts
Bridges the gap between generation, validation, and release

This high-level flow is the foundation for the detailed skill execution pipeline, which we’ll cover next.

🔄 Process Flow (Detailed Lifecycle)¶

The Test Case Generator Agent follows a precise multi-skill execution pipeline, each stage building on the previous one with structured inputs and outputs. This lifecycle is designed to support traceability, reusability, and modularity, and is orchestrated using Semantic Kernel.

🧬 Detailed Lifecycle Diagram¶

flowchart LR
    A[Trigger (HandlerScaffolded)] --> B[Load Trace + Context]
    B --> C[Discover Targets]
    C --> D[Generate Unit Test Skeleton]
    D --> E[Generate Validator Tests]
    E --> F[Generate Integration Test Stubs]
    F --> G[Generate BDD .feature Files]
    G --> H[Create Test Metadata File]
    H --> I[Run Validation Pass]
    I --> J{Success?}
    J -- Yes --> K[Write to Memory + Notify QA Agent]
    J -- No --> L[Emit Retry Plan + Studio Review]

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

🧠 Phase-by-Phase Skill Execution¶

Phase	Skill	Description
1. Initialization	`LoadTestContext`	Gathers blueprint ID, trace ID, service name, handler and validator info
2. Target Discovery	`ScanHandlerStructure`	Analyzes constructor, dependencies, DTO fields, port usage, roles
3. Unit Test Generation	`GenerateHandlerTests`	Produces MSTest unit tests for success, validation failure, exceptions
4. Validator Test Generation	`GenerateValidatorTests`	Builds tests to validate all `RuleFor` logic in validators
5. Integration Test Scaffolding	`GenerateControllerTests`	Adds endpoint test for controller or adapter using mocked or in-memory service
6. BDD Scenario Generation	`GenerateFeatureFile`	Emits `.feature` file using Gherkin syntax based on blueprint scenarios
7. Metadata Emission	`EmitTestMetadataFile`	Links each test file to the handler/controller with trace alignment
8. Validation	`ValidateGeneratedTests`	Ensures files follow structure, placeholder format, and meet coverage goals
9. Retry Flow (if needed)	`EmitRetrySuggestion`, `StudioInterventionRequested`	Triggered if missing coverage or critical validation errors found

📘 Example Execution Trace¶

{
  "trace_id": "payments-2025-0117",
  "executed_skills": [
    "LoadTestContext",
    "ScanHandlerStructure",
    "GenerateHandlerTests",
    "GenerateValidatorTests",
    "GenerateControllerTests",
    "GenerateFeatureFile",
    "EmitTestMetadataFile",
    "ValidateGeneratedTests"
  ],
  "status": "Success",
  "missing_keys": 0,
  "coverage_percent": 100.0
}

🔁 Conditional Logic¶

Condition	Outcome
❌ Validator not found	Skip validator test and log `missing-validator-warning`
❌ Controller route uses `[AllowAnonymous]`	Skip auth-related tests
❌ DTO is complex object graph	Enable deep traversal for scenario expansion
❌ Test class already exists	Regenerate only missing methods (idempotent patch)

🧠 Input/Output Per Skill¶

Skill	Input	Output
`GenerateHandlerTests`	Handler path, DTO, trace ID	`*.cs` unit test
`GenerateFeatureFile`	Blueprint actions, port roles	`*.feature` + `Steps.cs`
`EmitTestMetadataFile`	File paths, roles, handlers	`test-metadata.yaml`
`ValidateGeneratedTests`	File content	`coverage-report.json`, `status`

🛠 Re-entrant and Idempotent Design¶

Each skill can be rerun in isolation if:
- A new validator is added
- An auth policy changes
- A test class is partially deleted
Skills are decorated with:
- traceId, moduleId, handlerName, skillId
- executionTime, retryCount, status

✅ Summary¶

The agent’s lifecycle is:

🔧 Skill-driven and composable
🔁 Reusable and retryable
🧠 Enriched with memory and blueprint awareness
📦 Output-consistent and trace-aligned

This architecture ensures resilience, maintainability, and autonomy within the factory’s test-generation flow.

🧩 Skills and Kernel Functions¶

The Test Case Generator Agent uses a rich set of Semantic Kernel (SK) skills and composable functions to fulfill its responsibilities across unit, integration, and scenario-based test generation. Each skill is modular, traceable, retryable, and pluggable, and contributes to generating fully aligned test artifacts.

🔧 Core Skills Summary¶

Skill Name	Purpose
`LoadTestContext`	Initializes trace, blueprint, handler, DTO, role, and validator context
`ScanHandlerStructure`	Inspects code structure: constructor, method parameters, logic branches
`GenerateHandlerTests`	Creates MSTest test class with methods for success/failure/exception flows
`GenerateValidatorTests`	Generates `CreateInvoiceValidatorTests.cs` with positive/negative coverage
`GenerateControllerTests`	Builds endpoint test for REST/gRPC controller, with mocked dependencies
`GenerateFeatureFile`	Emits `.feature` file in Gherkin syntax with role-aware scenario coverage
`GenerateStepDefinitions`	Creates corresponding `Steps.cs` file mapped to `.feature` file
`EmitTestMetadataFile`	Outputs `test-metadata.yaml` for trace-based linking and Studio display
`ValidateGeneratedTests`	Verifies test syntax, key structure, naming, coverage, traceId compliance
`EmitRetrySuggestion`	Outputs actionable retry data if validation fails or coverage is low

📘 Kernel Function Signatures (Examples)¶

Task<TestContext> LoadTestContextAsync(HandlerInfo handlerInfo, TraceInfo trace)

Task<UnitTestFile> GenerateHandlerTestsAsync(TestContext context)

Task<FeatureFile> GenerateFeatureFileAsync(UseCaseBlueprint blueprint)

Task<ValidationResult> ValidateGeneratedTestsAsync(IEnumerable<TestFile> testFiles)

🔁 Reusability and Composability¶

Each skill is:

🔁 Re-entrant: can be re-invoked with updated inputs (e.g. new validator)
💡 AI-augmented: prompts for scenario expansion, edge case inference
🧠 Memory-aware: leverages past patterns, glossary terms, and prior test structures
🧱 Aligned to moduleId, handlerName, skillId, traceId

📄 Example: `GenerateHandlerTests`¶

Input:
- handlerName: CreateInvoiceHandler
- inputDto: CreateInvoiceInput
- events: InvoiceCreated, InvoiceApproved
- roles: FinanceManager
Output:
- CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs with:
  - Handle_ShouldSucceed_WithValidInput
  - Handle_ShouldFail_WhenCustomerIdIsMissing
  - Handle_ShouldEmit_InvoiceCreated_Event

📊 Skill Metadata Attached to Each Output¶

skill_id: GenerateHandlerTests
trace_id: invoice-2025-0143
module_id: InvoiceService
handler: CreateInvoiceHandler
output_path: Tests/InvoiceService.UnitTests/UseCases/CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
status: success
generated_at: 2025-05-17T16:45:00Z

🧠 Specialized Sub-Skills¶

Sub-Skill	Function
`SuggestTestNames`	Uses prompt to name methods based on handler behavior
`DetectMissingNegativeCases`	Validates validator logic vs. missing test cases
`SuggestGivenWhenThenSteps`	Generates BDD step templates using OpenAI
`InferErrorScenariosFromValidator`	Maps FluentValidation rules into test cases
`CreateMockConfigurationStub`	Prepares fake services for integration test harness

📌 Execution Control¶

All skills support:

dry_run mode: Emit plan, don’t write files
overwrite mode: Rewrite existing test if needed
diff_only mode: Emit suggestions without changing disk

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is powered by a robust, AI-augmented Semantic Kernel skill system that enables:

Modular and intelligent test generation
Coverage across unit, validator, controller, and BDD layers
Full traceability, observability, and retry control

These skills serve as the execution engine behind the entire test generation lifecycle.

🧪 Supported Test Types¶

The Test Case Generator Agent produces a complete spectrum of test types, covering functional correctness, behavioral validation, integration flow, and user intent — all trace-aligned and structured for automation and review.

Each test type serves a different layer of the architecture and supports different personas (developers, QA agents, reviewers).

🧱 Test Categories by Layer¶

Layer	Test Type	Description
Domain/Application	✅ Unit Tests	Validate `IHandle<T>` logic using in-memory fakes or mocks
Application	✅ Validator Tests	Covers `FluentValidation` rules: nulls, ranges, formats
Service/API	✅ Integration Tests	Simulate HTTP/gRPC endpoint calls and verify outcomes
UX & Use Case Level	✅ BDD / Scenario Tests	`.feature` files with `Given-When-Then` descriptions
Security / Auth Layer	✅ Role-Based Tests	Validates correct access per role and controller policy
Error Conditions	✅ Edge/Negative Tests	Covers invalid input, missing required fields, business rule violations

📦 Output Test Artifacts by Type¶

Type	File	Description
Unit Test	`CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs`	Tests `Handle()` logic using mocked repository and event bus
Validator Test	`CreateInvoiceValidatorTests.cs`	Confirms that `RuleFor(x => x.Amount)` works for edge cases
Controller Integration Test	`InvoiceControllerTests.cs`	Uses `WebApplicationFactory` or equivalent
BDD Feature File	`create_invoice.feature`	Human-readable test scenarios
Step Definitions	`CreateInvoiceSteps.cs`	Links Gherkin steps to assertions
Auth Test	Inline in controller test or BDD step	Verifies `401` and `403` outcomes for unauthorized users

🧪 Example: Unit Test Coverage¶

[TestMethod]
public async Task Handle_ShouldFail_WhenAmountIsZero()
{
    var input = new CreateInvoiceInput { Amount = 0 };
    var result = await handler.Handle(input);
    Assert.IsFalse(result.IsSuccess);
    Assert.AreEqual("Amount must be greater than zero", result.Error.Message);
}

📘 Example: Role-Based Access Test (Integration)¶

[TestMethod]
public async Task Post_ShouldReturn403_WhenUserIsNotFinanceManager()
{
    var client = factory.CreateClientWithRole("Guest");
    var response = await client.PostAsJsonAsync("/api/invoice", input);
    Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, response.StatusCode);
}

🧾 Example: BDD Scenario¶

Feature: Invoice creation

Scenario: Valid input
  Given a finance manager is authenticated
  When they create an invoice with amount 100
  Then the invoice is persisted
  And an "InvoiceCreated" event is emitted

Scenario: Unauthorized user
  Given a guest user
  When they create an invoice
  Then access is denied

🧠 Traceability per Test¶

All tests contain:

traceId (factory-level trace context)
handlerName, moduleId, blueprintId
rolesTested, validationRulesCovered
scenarioTitle (for BDD tests)

📈 Quality Enforcement¶

The agent ensures that:

All validators → 100% rule coverage
All handlers → at least one success and one failure test
All endpoints → tested for happy path and auth errors
All .feature files → linked to actual logic handlers

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent produces a complete stack of tests, including:

⚙️ Unit
✅ Validator
🌐 Integration
🧑‍🏫 BDD
🔐 Authorization
❌ Negative Scenarios

This enables the ConnectSoft platform to deliver fully validated, CI-ready, and QA-compatible microservices at scale.

📘 Blueprint-Aware Test Generation¶

In ConnectSoft, a Blueprint is a structured, traceable, and semantically rich definition of:

Use case logic
Input/output contracts
Roles and authorization policies
Events emitted
Business rules and success/failure paths
Expected observability and behavior metadata

The Test Case Generator Agent uses blueprints as a primary alignment reference to ensure generated tests directly reflect what was declared at the planning and architecture stage.

🧩 How Blueprint Awareness Works¶

Component	Usage in Test Generation
`blueprint_id`	Added to all generated test metadata and filenames
`use_case_name`	Determines test class and `.feature` file naming
`input_dto`	Used to generate test input payloads
`roles_allowed`	Triggers authorization tests and BDD scenarios
`emits_events`	Verifies event emission in unit tests or steps
`expected_failures`	Expands test set to include business rule violations
`observability.expectedSpans`	Confirms presence of tracing/assertion calls

📄 Example Blueprint Input¶

blueprint_id: usecase-9241
use_case: CreateInvoice
input_dto: CreateInvoiceInput
roles_allowed: [FinanceManager]
emits_events: [InvoiceCreated]
expected_failures:
  - MissingCustomerId
  - ZeroAmount

→ From this, the agent will:

🔨 Generate CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
✏️ Write 3 test methods:
- success
- missing customer ID
- zero amount
🛡 Generate 403 role test for unauthorized access
📘 Emit create_invoice.feature with 2 scenarios
🧪 Assert that InvoiceCreated event is emitted

🎯 Benefits of Blueprint Alignment¶

Without Blueprint Awareness	With Blueprint Awareness
❌ Tests may miss edge cases	✅ Edge cases generated from blueprint's `expected_failures`
❌ No role coverage enforced	✅ `roles_allowed` triggers role tests
❌ Event emission not verified	✅ Unit tests assert correct domain events
❌ Manual BDD step writing needed	✅ `.feature` steps auto-aligned to blueprint

🧠 Blueprint Enriched Test Tags¶

Each test class and .feature file includes:

[TraceId("invoice-2025-0143")]
[BlueprintId("usecase-9241")]
[RolesCovered("FinanceManager")]

@blueprint_id:usecase-9241
@trace_id:invoice-2025-0143
Feature: Invoice creation

📘 Sample Test Plan Emitted¶

handler: CreateInvoiceHandler
trace_id: invoice-2025-0143
blueprint_id: usecase-9241
test_cases:
  - type: unit
    scenario: success
  - type: unit
    scenario: MissingCustomerId
  - type: unit
    scenario: ZeroAmount
  - type: auth
    role: Guest
    outcome: Forbidden
  - type: event
    verifies: InvoiceCreated
  - type: bdd
    scenario: Valid invoice creation

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent doesn’t guess — it uses blueprint-defined intent to:

📘 Drive test naming and trace alignment
🔍 Expand case coverage to match declared failures
🔐 Enforce security test scenarios
🧪 Validate side effects like events or logs
📜 Produce BDD aligned with user stories

This ensures traceability, accountability, and architectural compliance.

🧩 Edition-Specific Test Scaffolding¶

In ConnectSoft, an Edition is a customization layer that allows different feature sets, roles, rules, and behaviors for the same base application, tailored for:

🏥 Different customers or verticals (e.g., Vet, Dental, Legal)
🧾 Licensing tiers (e.g., Free, Pro, Enterprise)
🌍 Localizations and region-specific behavior

The Test Case Generator Agent respects edition definitions and generates test scaffolds that reflect edition-specific behavior variations.

📘 Example Use Case¶

Base Behavior:¶

use_case: CreateInvoice
roles_allowed: [FinanceManager]

Edition: `lite`¶

edition_id: lite
overrides:
  roles_allowed: [Accountant]
  emits_events: []
  validators:
    skip: [TaxRateValidation]

Edition: `enterprise`¶

edition_id: enterprise
overrides:
  roles_allowed: [FinanceManager, CFO]
  emits_events: [InvoiceCreated, InvoiceAuditLogged]
  validators:
    additional: [CurrencyCodeValidator]

🔁 Agent Responsibilities for Editions¶

Edition-Aware Output	Description
Role Tests	Adds tests per edition-specific access role
Validator Tests	Includes or skips rules depending on edition config
Event Assertion Tests	Adjusts for emitted events per edition
.feature Tags	Adds `@edition` tags to `.feature` scenarios
Conditional Logic Branches	Flags edition-specific paths using conditional asserts
Edition Metadata Output	Adds `edition_id` to test metadata and trace logs

📄 Generated Files for Editions¶

Tests/
├── InvoiceService.UnitTests/
│   └── Editions/
│       ├── CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.lite.cs
│       └── CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.enterprise.cs
├── InvoiceService.Specs/
│   └── Features/
│       ├── create_invoice.lite.feature
│       └── create_invoice.enterprise.feature
└── test-metadata.yaml

📘 BDD Example¶

@edition:enterprise
Feature: Enterprise invoice creation

Scenario: CFO can create an invoice
  Given a CFO is authenticated
  When they submit an invoice
  Then the invoice is created
  And an "InvoiceAuditLogged" event is emitted

🧠 Test Metadata for Editions¶

tests:
  - handler: CreateInvoiceHandler
    edition: lite
    roles_tested: [Accountant]
    emitted_events: []
    validators_skipped: [TaxRateValidation]

  - handler: CreateInvoiceHandler
    edition: enterprise
    roles_tested: [FinanceManager, CFO]
    emitted_events: [InvoiceCreated, InvoiceAuditLogged]
    validators_added: [CurrencyCodeValidator]

🔐 Edition Testing Scenarios¶

Scenario	Example
✅ Auth behavior changes	Accountant allowed in `lite`, CFO required in `enterprise`
✅ Feature toggle changes	Logging enabled in `enterprise` only
✅ Validation differences	Tax rules skipped in `lite`, strict in `enterprise`

📦 Studio and CI/CD Support¶

Editions are visually grouped in Studio dashboards
CI/CD pipelines can selectively run edition-specific tests
Coverage reports are edition-scoped
QA Engineers can drill down by editionId for test review

✅ Summary¶

Edition-specific scaffolding ensures the Test Case Generator Agent supports per-edition compliance and coverage, including:

🧪 Feature toggling
🔐 Role redefinition
🧠 Custom validation logic
📈 Scenario expansion and trace separation

This ensures ConnectSoft SaaS outputs are test-covered across all edition permutations.

⚠️ Negative & Edge Case Generation¶

Negative and edge cases are the most frequent source of:

🧨 Runtime bugs
🔐 Security vulnerabilities
📉 Business logic failures
❌ Regression gaps in CI pipelines

The Test Case Generator Agent plays a critical role in preventing these defects early by systematically generating structured, validated negative and boundary tests based on:

DTO structures
FluentValidation rules
Business rules from the blueprint
Authorization scenarios
Null, zero, empty, or malformed input conditions

🧠 How the Agent Infers Negative Cases¶

Source	Inferred Edge Cases
`RuleFor(x => x.TotalAmount).GreaterThan(0)`	→ `TotalAmount = 0`, `TotalAmount = -1`
`RuleFor(x => x.CustomerId).NotEmpty()`	→ `CustomerId = Guid.Empty`
`RuleFor(x => x.Currency).Length(3)`	→ `Currency = ""`, `"US"`, `"USDX"`
`roles_allowed: [FinanceManager]`	→ Try with Guest, Unauthenticated, Manager
`required_fields: [date, location]`	→ Missing these fields in input
`enum field: PaymentStatus`	→ Invalid string/number input (`"Invalid"`, `999`)

🧾 Example: Validator-Based Negative Test¶

Validation Rule:

RuleFor(x => x.TotalAmount).GreaterThan(0);

Generated Test:

[TestMethod]
public void Validate_ShouldFail_WhenAmountIsZero()
{
    var input = new CreateInvoiceInput { TotalAmount = 0 };
    var result = validator.Validate(input);
    Assert.IsFalse(result.IsValid);
    Assert.AreEqual("TotalAmount must be greater than 0", result.Errors[0].ErrorMessage);
}

📘 Example: Auth Rejection¶

[TestMethod]
public async Task Post_ShouldReturn403_WhenUserIsUnauthorized()
{
    var client = factory.CreateClientWithRole("Guest");
    var response = await client.PostAsJsonAsync("/api/invoice", validPayload);
    Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, response.StatusCode);
}

🔍 Other Edge Case Types¶

Category	Test Examples
Null Fields	DTO field = `null`
Boundary Values	0, -1, 1, `int.MaxValue`
Missing Required	JSON input missing required field
Invalid Enum	`"InvalidValue"` for enum-type fields
Unauthorized Roles	Request by a user lacking required role
Incorrect Formats	Dates in wrong format, currency codes too long
Conflict Scenarios	e.g., trying to create an invoice that already exists

📁 Output Summary¶

Generated test methods are named and tagged clearly:

[TestMethod]
public void Validate_ShouldFail_WhenCustomerIdIsMissing() { ... }

[TestMethod]
public void Handle_ShouldFail_WhenAmountIsZero() { ... }

[TestMethod]
public async Task Post_ShouldReturn400_WhenPayloadIsMalformed() { ... }

Included in:

✅ Unit tests for handler and validator
✅ Integration tests for controller input
✅ .feature files under Scenario: Invalid input
✅ Test metadata: test-metadata.yaml

📈 QA/CI/CD Impact¶

Output	Use
`negative_cases: 3`	Appears in test metadata
`test_coverage.json`	Tracks % of rules with negative test
CI pipelines	Fail if critical validator has no edge case test

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent guarantees robust error handling coverage by:

🧠 Inferring negative conditions from DTOs and validation rules
📘 Generating matching tests and .feature scenarios
📦 Structuring output for CI/CD, Studio, QA Agents
🔄 Supporting retry and memory for missed cases

This ensures every ConnectSoft output is not just correct under ideal conditions — but resilient under edge and failure paths.

🤝 Collaborative Role in the Agent Ecosystem¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is a keystone agent in the Engineering Cluster, tightly integrated with other agents responsible for:

🏗️ Generating features and services
🧪 Validating correctness
🐛 Investigating and resolving bugs
📤 Preparing pull requests for review
✅ Ensuring test coverage and regression safety

Its outputs are consumed, validated, enriched, and extended by these other agents.

🔁 Agent Collaboration Matrix¶

Collaborating Agent	Interaction
Backend Developer Agent	Provides handlers, validators, controller endpoints that trigger test generation
Frontend Developer Agent	May consume BDD `.feature` files or test endpoints
QA Engineer Agent	Uses test metadata, `.feature` files, and test coverage summaries for manual + automated testing
Bug Resolver Agent	Uses test artifacts to reproduce and fix regressions; updates test metadata with bug references
Pull Request Creator Agent	Annotates PRs with test coverage reports, new test file references, and status of `.feature` scenarios

🔁 Collaboration Flows¶

🧪 QA Engineer Agent¶

sequenceDiagram
    participant TestGen
    participant QAAgent

    TestGen->>QAAgent: Emit test-metadata.yaml
    TestGen->>QAAgent: Emit .feature file
    QAAgent->>TestGen: Request retry or correction (if gaps found)
    QAAgent-->>Studio: Display test grid and coverage

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

Used for:

📄 QA scenario mapping
📋 Regression checklist auto-generation
📊 Visual test coverage dashboards in Studio

🐛 Bug Resolver Agent¶

sequenceDiagram
    participant TestGen
    participant BugResolver

    BugResolver->>TestGen: Lookup test for handler X
    TestGen->>Memory: Fetch test trace, result
    BugResolver->>TestGen: Extend test for bug 4287
    TestGen->>Memory: Store corrected test and bug ref

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

Used for:

Reproducing failing logic
Adding permanent regression tests
Logging bug_id tags in test metadata

📤 Pull Request Creator Agent¶

Contribution	Example
Test Summary	“✔️ 3 new tests generated for `CreateInvoiceHandler`”
Coverage Annotation	“📈 92.4% test coverage for `InvoiceService`”
Studio Link	Direct link to trace ID and `.feature` preview
Inline Comments	“🔍 Missing role test for `Guest` user in `CancelInvoiceHandlerTests.cs`”

🧱 File Contracts Used by Other Agents¶

File	Used By	Purpose
`test-metadata.yaml`	QA Agent, PR Agent	Trace → Test mapping
`.feature`	QA Agent	Manual test scenario export
`*.cs` test files	Bug Resolver Agent	Extend or debug logic
`test-coverage.json`	PR Agent, Studio	Visual dashboard
`execution-metadata.json`	All	Retry and diagnostics

🧩 Multi-Agent Handshake Example¶

→ Backend Developer finishes CreateInvoiceHandler
→ Triggers TestCaseGeneratorAgent
→ QA Engineer Agent uses generated `.feature`
→ Bug Resolver uses test during bug fix
→ PR Agent lists tests in pull request comments

🧠 Tagging and Traceability¶

All outputs include:

agent_id: test-case-generator-agent
trace_id: invoice-2025-0143
blueprint_id: usecase-9241
bug_id: null
used_by: [qa-engineer-agent, bug-resolver-agent, pull-request-creator-agent]

Studio and memory system use this for indexing, linking, and trace replay.

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is not a siloed tool — it is a cross-agent, cross-discipline quality orchestrator, directly supporting:

🧪 QA testing
🐛 Bug tracing
✅ CI/CD validation
📤 Pull request intelligence

This guarantees full test lifecycle collaboration and traceability from generation to deployment.

🔁 Retry and Correction Loops¶

In a dynamic, multi-agent pipeline, initial test generation may result in:

❌ Missing scenarios (due to late blueprint updates)
❌ Structural inconsistencies (e.g. renamed DTOs, missing validators)
❌ Coverage gaps or low-quality assertions
❌ Edition-specific overrides arriving post-generation

The Test Case Generator Agent includes robust retry and correction logic, ensuring that test artifacts remain accurate, traceable, and complete over time — even if other parts of the system evolve.

🧬 Correction & Retry Lifecycle¶

sequenceDiagram
    participant TestAgent
    participant ValidatorAgent
    participant Studio
    participant Memory

    ValidatorAgent->>TestAgent: Emit i18nValidationFailed
    TestAgent->>Memory: Lookup last test trace
    TestAgent->>TestAgent: Retry test skill with patch mode
    alt Retry fails
        TestAgent->>Studio: Emit RetryRequested + HumanCorrectionNeeded
    else Retry succeeds
        TestAgent->>Memory: Store patched test
    end

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

🧠 Retry Scenarios¶

Scenario	Correction
🧱 DTO field renamed	Re-scan and update method parameters, test input
📉 Test missing for validator	Generate missing `ValidatorTests.cs`
🔁 Handler updated with new failure case	Add new test method with same `traceId`
🔐 New role added to controller	Generate new authorization test
🧾 Feature file desync	Rebuild `.feature` from blueprint using `dry_run` mode

📘 Retry Modes¶

Mode	Behavior
Auto-retry	Detects coverage issues and regenerates test artifacts without human input
Patch mode	Adds missing test methods to existing test classes (does not delete)
Human-in-the-loop	Studio emits retry event with curated correction details
Edition retry	Reprocesses test generation for newly added edition variant
CI retry	Re-triggered via `TestCoverageCheckFailed` in pipeline

🧩 Artifact Metadata with Retry Info¶

trace_id: payments-2025-0183
handler: CancelInvoiceHandler
retry_count: 2
last_retry_reason: "Missing role test for 'CFO'"
correction_status: success
corrected_by: test-case-generator-agent
original_generated_at: 2025-05-14T12:00:00Z
last_updated_at: 2025-05-17T15:34:00Z

🧠 Memory-Driven Retry Logic¶

Agent uses memory to:

Locate *.cs test files by handler/module/edition
Identify missing test cases based on previous metadata
Compare validator rules to test method coverage
Merge patch logic into existing file without overwriting human edits
Emit retry status and observability logs

🔍 Retry Observability¶

Metric	Purpose
`test.retry.count`	Number of automatic retries triggered
`test.retry.failure`	Count of retries needing manual intervention
`test.retry.success_rate`	% of automated retries that resolved the issue
`test.patch.applied`	Tracks number of test files corrected post-generation

💬 Studio Correction Example¶

requested_by: qa-engineer-agent
reason: "Missing negative test for 'ZeroAmount'"
action: Add test to CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
status: success
resolved_by: test-case-generator-agent

→ Displayed in Studio test preview as an auto-applied patch with trace reference

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent provides resilient, intelligent, and trace-aligned correction flows through:

🔁 Smart retries for handlers, controllers, editions, and features
📘 Patch mode for targeted augmentation of existing test files
🧠 Studio + human hooks for QA-guided corrections
📊 Full observability and retry tracking

This guarantees that tests evolve in sync with the codebase and blueprint lifecycle.

🧪 Validation, Linting, and Structural Consistency¶

After generating tests, the agent must ensure that the output is:

✅ Executable (compiles and passes syntax checks)
✅ Traceable (linked to handler, blueprint, and trace ID)
✅ Complete (covers required success, failure, edge, and role paths)
✅ Consistent (naming, structure, conventions match platform standards)
🧠 Aligned with factory trace and edition logic

Without this phase, silent defects (e.g., missing tests, unlinked trace, invalid Gherkin syntax) could propagate to QA, CI, or PR review stages.

✅ Validation Scope¶

Validation Area	What It Checks
Traceability	Each file includes `traceId`, `blueprintId`, `handlerName`
Test Class Naming	Follows pattern: `[UseCase]HandlerTests.cs`
Method Naming	PascalCase, starts with verb (`Should_`, `Handle_`, `Validate_`)
Coverage Structure	At least one success, one failure, one edge, and one role-based test per handler
Validator Alignment	All `RuleFor` entries have a matching test case
.feature Syntax	Valid Gherkin structure and step completeness
Empty or Placeholder Tests	Flags generated tests that lack assertions
Conflicts with Existing Files	Prevents overwriting manually added test methods (unless allowed)
Retry Compliance	Ensures correction patches resolved the original issue

🧬 Example: Validation Report Output¶

{
  "trace_id": "payments-2025-0183",
  "handler": "CancelInvoiceHandler",
  "validation": {
    "unit_test_file": "CancelInvoiceHandlerTests.cs",
    "status": "Passed",
    "methods": 5,
    "missing_cases": [],
    "structure": "Valid",
    "trace_annotations": true,
    "assertions_per_method": {
      "min": 1,
      "avg": 2.4
    }
  },
  "feature_file": {
    "status": "Passed",
    "syntax": "Valid",
    "scenarios": 3
  }
}

📄 Gherkin Validation Example¶

Scenario: Valid Gherkin

Scenario: Create a valid invoice
  Given a finance manager is authenticated
  When they submit an invoice with amount 100
  Then the invoice is persisted

❌ Invalid Gherkin

Scenario Create a valid invoice
Given finance manager
When submit
Then success

→ Rejected with error: InvalidScenarioFormat: Missing keyword structure

🧰 Linting Checks¶

Area	Example
Test Class Naming	❌ `InvoiceTests.cs` → ✅ `CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs`
Method Signature	❌ `Test1()` → ✅ `Handle_ShouldReturnSuccess_WhenValidInputProvided()`
FluentAssertions	Enforce `result.Should().BeSuccess();` vs raw `Assert.IsTrue()`
Redundant Code	Detect unused mocks or `var input = null;`
Ordering	`Arrange → Act → Assert` order enforced in unit tests
Snapshot Cleanliness	Markdown snapshot must not exceed X length or miss link to feature/handler

📦 Validation Artifacts Produced¶

File	Description
`validation-summary.json`	Overall test validation status per module and handler
`test-lint-report.txt`	Developer-readable style errors
`coverage-check.yaml`	Per trace ID breakdown of test types present
`StudioFeedback.json`	Status markers to render green/yellow/red indicators in Studio dashboards

📊 Metrics for Validation Health¶

Metric	Description
`test.validation.pass_rate`	% of handlers with valid tests
`test.structure.errors.count`	Count of class/method structure violations
`feature.syntax.failures`	Number of `.feature` files rejected for Gherkin errors
`assertion.per.method.avg`	Should be ≥ 1.2 on average
`trace.missing.rate`	Should be < 5%

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent performs deep structural, semantic, and trace validation of all test artifacts, ensuring:

💾 Executable test code
🧠 Traceable test assets
📘 Readable and reusable .feature files
📊 Clean reporting for CI, Studio, and QA workflows

With validation and linting complete, test outputs are safe, predictable, and production-grade.

📎 Test Metadata, Tags, and Traceability¶

In ConnectSoft’s AI Software Factory, traceability is foundational to maintaining:

💡 End-to-end visibility from blueprint to behavior
✅ QA validation workflows
📤 PR reviews with auto-linked tests
📊 Coverage dashboards in Studio
🔁 Retry and correction mechanisms
🧠 Reusability of previously generated test assets

The Test Case Generator Agent ensures every test artifact is deeply trace-tagged and indexed across memory, file system, and CI layers.

🧩 Core Metadata Attached to All Tests¶

Tag	Example
`trace_id`	`invoice-2025-0143`
`blueprint_id`	`usecase-9241`
`handler_name`	`CreateInvoiceHandler`
`dto_name`	`CreateInvoiceInput`
`module_id`	`InvoiceService`
`agent_id`	`test-case-generator-agent`
`edition_id`	`enterprise` (if applicable)
`roles_tested`	`[FinanceManager, Guest]`
`test_type`	`unit`, `validator`, `integration`, `bdd`
`feature_file`	`create_invoice.feature`
`generated_at`	ISO timestamp
`retry_count`	`0` (or more, if regenerated)
`corrected_by`	`qa-engineer-agent` (if manually patched)

🧾 Example: `test-metadata.yaml`¶

trace_id: invoice-2025-0143
blueprint_id: usecase-9241
module: InvoiceService
edition: enterprise
generated_by: test-case-generator-agent
test_cases:
  - handler: CreateInvoiceHandler
    test_class: CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs
    test_type: unit
    roles_tested: [FinanceManager]
    coverage:
      success: true
      edge_cases: 2
      auth: true
      validator: true
  - controller: InvoiceController
    test_class: InvoiceControllerTests.cs
    test_type: integration
  - bdd_file: create_invoice.feature
    test_type: bdd
    scenarios: 3

🧬 Metadata Injection in Test Files¶

✅ Unit Test Class¶

[TestClass]
[TraceId("invoice-2025-0143")]
[BlueprintId("usecase-9241")]
[Edition("enterprise")]
public class CreateInvoiceHandlerTests { ... }

✅ BDD `.feature` File¶

@trace_id:invoice-2025-0143
@blueprint_id:usecase-9241
@edition:enterprise
Feature: Create Invoice

📁 Where Metadata Is Stored¶

File	Purpose
`test-metadata.yaml`	Primary index for all test artifacts in the module
`execution-metadata.json`	Semantic Kernel trace metadata with skill execution and retry info
`StudioPreview.md`	Human-readable test summaries with links and tags
`coverage-check.yaml`	Simplified file for CI coverage validation
`observability-events.jsonl`	Span logs tagged with handler and blueprint references

🧠 Memory & Searchability¶

The metadata is indexed into:

🧠 ConnectSoft Memory DB
📘 Studio Trace View
📊 Test coverage dashboards
📤 Pull Request annotations
🧪 Bug reproduction lookup (for Bug Resolver Agent)

→ Enabling queries like:

"Find all tests for blueprint `usecase-9241` in edition `lite` with missing auth coverage"

📤 Output Contracts with Other Agents¶

Agent	Uses Tags For
QA Engineer Agent	Filtering `.feature` files by role, handler, edition
Bug Resolver Agent	Finding affected tests by trace ID or blueprint
Pull Request Creator Agent	Annotating PR with trace-aligned test artifacts
Studio	Rendering trace → handler → test → scenario relationships
Test Coverage Validator	Scanning missing test types by `test_type` and `handler_name`

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent provides rich, trace-anchored metadata for every artifact, enabling:

🎯 Full test traceability
🔁 Retry and update mapping
📊 Coverage validation and QA inspection
📁 Structured search and reuse
🤝 Multi-agent interoperability and Studio UI integration

This metadata fabric is the backbone of ConnectSoft’s observability and quality assurance layer.

🧠 Skills for Scenario Simulation and Prompting¶

Not all test cases can be extracted statically from code. The Test Case Generator Agent uses Semantic Kernel + OpenAI-powered skills to:

💡 Simulate user flows and business rule paths
📘 Expand functional and BDD scenarios based on intent
🧪 Infer edge conditions not explicitly described
🔁 Suggest test case names and outcomes
✍️ Generate realistic test inputs and response expectations

These skills allow the agent to think like a human QA engineer, covering both happy path and unhappy path scenarios — with trace alignment.

🧩 Key Prompt-Based Scenario Skills¶

Skill Name	Purpose
`SimulateUseCaseBehavior`	Analyze blueprint, DTO, and handler to generate natural language test paths
`ExpandScenarioVariants`	Convert a simple use case into multiple functional variations
`GenerateGivenWhenThen`	Emit Gherkin steps from blueprint + business logic
`SuggestTestMethodNames`	Turn scenarios into readable, expressive test method names
`ProposeEdgeCasesFromRules`	Given validation rules, suggest test inputs for boundary conditions
`InferBusinessRuleAssertions`	Suggest expected outcomes based on domain rules
`GenerateInputSamplesFromDTO`	Emit example JSON or C# input payloads
`PromptTestDescriptions`	Add markdown-based summaries or comments to test classes

💬 Prompt Template Example¶

You are generating test cases for the use case: CreateInvoice.

DTO:
- TotalAmount: decimal, required, > 0
- Currency: string, 3 letters
- CustomerId: Guid, required

Business Rule:
- Invoice must emit `InvoiceCreated` event on success
- Unauthorized users should receive HTTP 403

Generate:
- Test method names
- Gherkin scenarios
- Edge conditions

🧪 Example Prompt Result¶

Suggested Unit Test Methods¶

Handle_ShouldReturnSuccess_WhenInputIsValid
Handle_ShouldFail_WhenAmountIsZero
Handle_ShouldFail_WhenCustomerIdIsMissing

Suggested `.feature` Scenarios¶

Scenario: Submit a valid invoice
  Given a finance manager
  When they submit an invoice with amount 100 and currency USD
  Then an invoice is saved and event "InvoiceCreated" is emitted

Scenario: Missing amount
  Given a finance manager
  When they submit an invoice with amount 0
  Then the request is rejected

🧠 Role-Aware Scenario Generation¶

When blueprint contains:

roles_allowed: [FinanceManager]

The agent prompts:

“Suggest alternative scenarios where unauthorized roles (e.g., Guest, Analyst) try to access the endpoint.”

→ Generates:

Scenario: Unauthorized access attempt
TestMethod: Post_ShouldReturn403_WhenUserIsGuest

📄 Input-to-Scenario Mapping (AI-Augmented)¶

public class CreateInvoiceInput {
  public Guid CustomerId { get; set; }
  public decimal TotalAmount { get; set; }
  public string Currency { get; set; }
}

→ Prompt skill outputs:

[
  { "field": "TotalAmount", "edge_cases": [0, -1, null] },
  { "field": "Currency", "edge_cases": ["", "US", "USDX"] },
  { "field": "CustomerId", "edge_cases": ["Guid.Empty", "null"] }
]

Used to auto-generate validator tests.

📜 Markdown Scenario Snapshots (Studio Preview)¶

### Test: CreateInvoice - Edge Case Summary

- ✅ Valid invoice — emits `InvoiceCreated`
- ❌ Zero amount — rejected by validator
- ❌ Guest user — receives 403 Forbidden
- ❌ Invalid currency — rejected

✅ Summary¶

Through prompt-driven scenario simulation, the agent:

🔁 Covers realistic and inferred paths
🧠 Adapts to business logic even when implicit
🧪 Tests from a user and system perspective
🧾 Outputs traceable, clear, and complete scenario maps

These skills are critical for high-quality BDD and test generation beyond static analysis.

🧠 Knowledge Base – Patterns, Examples, and Embeddings¶

To generate realistic, consistent, and context-aware tests, the Test Case Generator Agent relies on an internal Knowledge Base that includes:

📘 Domain-specific patterns (e.g. invoices, payments, appointments)
🧪 Testing idioms, assertion best practices, mocking strategies
🔁 Previously generated test assets
🔠 Glossary terms for events, validations, error formats
🧠 Embeddings of trace-aligned handler/test relationships

This enables the agent to reuse patterns, avoid duplication, and enforce test behavior consistency across microservices, modules, and editions.

🧩 Core Knowledge Components¶

Knowledge Type	Example
Test Naming Patterns	`Handle_ShouldReturnSuccess_WhenValidInput()`
BDD Scenario Templates	`Scenario: Unauthorized Access → Given user is guest`
Common Validator Rules	`RuleFor(x => x.Amount).GreaterThan(0)` → failure test case
Mocking Patterns	Repository mocked with `.Setup(x => x.Add(...))`
Assertion Conventions	Use of `Assert.True`, `result.Should().BeSuccess()`, or `FluentAssertions`
Domain Behaviors	`InvoiceCreated` → implies test must assert event publication
Edge Case Templates	`0`, `null`, `Guid.Empty`, `"InvalidValue"` for enums
Previous Test Metadata	Trace-aligned test classes and their mappings

🧠 Example: Internal Pattern Storage¶

test_naming:
  - "{HandlerName}_ShouldReturn{Outcome}_When{Condition}"
  - "Validate_ShouldFail_When{InvalidField}"
mock_templates:
  - "var mock = new Mock<I{DependencyName}>();"
assertions:
  - "result.Should().BeSuccess();"
  - "response.StatusCode.Should().Be(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);"

📘 Scenario Embedding: Use Case → Gherkin¶

From prior projects, the agent learns:

"CancelAppointment" → scenario involves time constraint checks
"CapturePayment" → always includes currency validation and fraud rule
"CreateInvoice" → requires event assertion for InvoiceCreated

→ This embedding is reused to autofill scenario skeletons and predict validations or assertions.

🧪 Reuse Across Modules¶

Scenario	Pattern Reuse
`BookAppointmentHandler` → `VetClinicService`	🧠 Reuse from `DentalClinicService.BookAppointmentHandlerTests.cs`
`PayInvoiceHandler` → `BillingService`	Reuse from `PayOrderHandlerTests.cs` in `ECommerceService`

🔍 Knowledge from Memory System¶

The agent queries memory for:

Matching DTO structure (CreateInvoiceInput)
Similar blueprint IDs (usecase-9xxx in same domain)
Matching emitted events (InvoiceCreated)
Matching validation rules (GreaterThan, NotEmpty)
Matching authorization roles or controller routes

→ Enables prefetching of:

.feature structure
Edge case suggestions
Assertion phrases
Trace tags to carry forward

📄 Snapshot: Prior Example Lookup¶

{
  "handler": "CreateInvoiceHandler",
  "coverage": {
    "unit": true,
    "validator": true,
    "feature_file": "create_invoice.feature",
    "edge_cases": ["ZeroAmount", "MissingCustomerId"]
  },
  "related_handlers": ["CreateOrderHandler", "CreateRefundHandler"]
}

🧠 Use in Prompt Priming¶

The knowledge base is used to prime Semantic Kernel prompts, injecting:

🔁 Prior scenarios for similar blueprints
🧱 Domain-specific test idioms
🧪 Validator → test mappings
📘 Scenario structure seeds for .feature generation

📊 Studio + Memory Visibility¶

All generated knowledge artifacts are:

🧠 Stored and retrievable by other agents
🔍 Indexed by handler name, test file, DTO structure, or emitted event
📎 Linkable in Studio for trace reviews and glossary-aligned coverage maps

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is backed by a rich, evolving knowledge base that drives:

💡 Pattern reuse
🔁 Test standardization
📘 Consistent Gherkin phrasing
🔍 Cross-service and cross-edition alignment
🤖 Faster, smarter, and more human-like test generation

📡 Observability Hooks: Spans, Logs, and QA Indexing¶

The ConnectSoft AI Software Factory is observability-first. Every action performed by the Test Case Generator Agent must be:

🔍 Traceable by trace ID, handler, and edition
🧪 Validated for test coverage and structure correctness
📊 Monitored in CI/CD, Studio dashboards, and PRs
📁 Logged for QA, retries, and diagnostics
✅ Integrated with test coverage gates and QA agent workflows

📈 OpenTelemetry Spans (OTel)¶

Each skill execution emits an OTel span, enriched with tags:

Span Name	Tags
`testgen.GenerateHandlerTests`	`handler`, `trace_id`, `module_id`, `blueprint_id`, `skill_id`
`testgen.GenerateValidatorTests`	`dto`, `rules_count`, `coverage_percent`
`testgen.GenerateFeatureFile`	`scenario_count`, `roles_tested`, `edition`
`testgen.ValidateGeneratedTests`	`status`, `lint_issues`, `retry_required`
`testgen.EmitTestMetadataFile`	`test_count`, `output_path`, `edition`

✅ All spans include duration_ms, status_code, and retry_count.

🧾 Structured Logs¶

Log Type	Content
Success Log	`Test case generated for CancelInvoiceHandler [trace: invoice-2025-0143]`
Failure Log	`Missing validator test for Amount field → Retry queued`
Warning Log	`Method name does not follow convention: Test1()`
Retry Log	`Retry #2 completed for CreateInvoiceHandlerTests.cs, added auth scenario`
QA Tag Log	`Marked InvoiceControllerTests.cs as traceable to blueprint usecase-9241`

Format: .jsonl (JSON Lines) for downstream ingestion.

📦 Emitted Observability Artifacts¶

File	Description
`execution-metadata.json`	Tracks all skills executed, start/end times, retry counts
`observability-events.jsonl`	Span-level logs for trace viewer or test dashboard
`validation-summary.json`	Lint results, structure compliance, scenario coverage
`test-coverage-summary.yaml`	Module → handler → test type coverage grid
`qa-report.md`	Markdown summary for QA agent and human review in Studio

📊 Studio Dashboard Hooks¶

The following insights are visualized per trace:

View	Source
✅ Handler-to-Test Mapping	`test-metadata.yaml`
✅ Test Coverage by Type	`test-coverage-summary.yaml`
✅ Scenario Count & Roles	`.feature` file span metadata
⚠️ Failed Validation Issues	`validation-summary.json`
🔁 Retry History	`execution-metadata.json` & `observability-events.jsonl`

📎 Integration with CI/CD and QA Agents¶

Consumer	Observability Use
QA Engineer Agent	Consumes `.feature` tags, coverage YAML, logs failure scenarios
Pull Request Creator Agent	Uses span summaries to annotate PR with test details
Test Coverage Validator Agent	Validates percent complete per handler/test type
Studio Trace Viewer	Renders spans per skill execution in chronological and semantic order

📘 Sample QA Report (Markdown)¶

### Test Summary: CreateInvoiceHandler (Trace ID: invoice-2025-0143)

- ✅ Unit Tests: 3 (Success, ZeroAmount, MissingCustomerId)
- ✅ Validator Tests: 2
- ✅ Auth Scenario: FinanceManager, Guest (403)
- ✅ .feature Scenarios: 3
- 📎 Blueprint: usecase-9241 | Edition: enterprise
- 🔁 Retry Count: 1 (Auth test added on second run)

⚠️ Issues: None

✅ Summary¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is fully instrumented with:

⏱️ Real-time spans for every skill
🧾 Structured logs for trace replays and diagnostics
📊 Test coverage summaries for QA, CI, and Studio
🔁 Retry metadata for lifecycle visibility
📘 Markdown snapshots for human-in-the-loop review

This observability layer guarantees test artifacts are never a black box — they are always inspectable, auditable, and QA-integrated.

✅ Final Summary and Conclusion¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is a core engineering automation agent in the ConnectSoft AI Software Factory. Its primary responsibility is to:

Autonomously generate unit, validator, integration, BDD, and edge-case tests for every use case, controller, port, and validator — ensuring complete, traceable, and CI-ready test coverage aligned with blueprints, editions, and tenant-specific rules.

🧭 Strategic Position in the Factory¶

flowchart TD
    VisionAgent --> Blueprint
    Blueprint --> MicroserviceGenerator
    MicroserviceGenerator --> BackendDeveloper
    BackendDeveloper --> TestCaseGeneratorAgent
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> TestArtifacts
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> QAEngineerAgent
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> PullRequestCreatorAgent
    TestCaseGeneratorAgent --> RetryOrCorrectionFlow

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

✅ Trigger Point: Post-handler/controller generation ✅ Consumers: QA Agent, PR Agent, Bug Resolver Agent, CI/CD validator ✅ Outputs: Complete test scaffolds with full metadata and observability

🧩 Key Functional Capabilities¶

Capability	Description
📦 Test Generation	Unit, Validator, Integration, BDD `.feature`, Steps, Edge/Negative
📘 Blueprint-Aware	Aligns to `blueprint_id`, `trace_id`, and declared rules/roles/events
🔐 Edition-Aware	Generates edition-specific test variants and conditional flows
🧪 Validator Mapping	Ensures every `RuleFor(...)` has corresponding test method
🧠 Scenario Simulation	AI-augmented prompting for realistic, role-based Gherkin scenarios
🔁 Retry & Correction	Patch-mode regeneration with trace-backed update tracking
📎 Traceable Artifacts	Includes test metadata, coverage reports, Studio-compatible annotations
📊 Observability	Emits spans, logs, and Markdown previews with full QA/PR integration
🧠 Knowledge Reuse	Ingests patterns and examples across modules and domains

📘 Output Artifacts Recap¶

Type	File/Format
Unit Tests	`HandlerTests.cs`
Validator Tests	`ValidatorTests.cs`
Integration Tests	`ControllerTests.cs`
BDD Scenarios	`.feature` + `Steps.cs`
Metadata	`test-metadata.yaml`, `execution-metadata.json`
QA Reports	`qa-report.md`, `test-coverage-summary.yaml`
Observability	`observability-events.jsonl`, OTel spans

🤝 Agent Collaboration¶

Agent	Interaction
QA Engineer Agent	Provides test feedback, consumes `.feature` files
Bug Resolver Agent	Reuses test cases for reproducing defects
PR Creator Agent	Publishes trace-aligned test coverage in PR comments
Test Coverage Validator	Confirms coverage thresholds and test quality
Studio UI	Renders trace-test relationships and scenario metadata

🧠 Final Takeaway¶

The Test Case Generator Agent is the quality assurance brain of the factory, delivering:

🔄 Continuous test generation
📘 Blueprint-consistent behavior
🧱 Structural enforcement and observability
🧠 Contextual intelligence for deep scenario testing
💼 Support for rapid onboarding, QA, and audit compliance

🏭 Every ConnectSoft-generated microservice is test-covered, role-aligned, edition-specific, and CI-ready — by default — thanks to this agent.

🧠 Test Case Generator Agent Specification¶

🎯 Purpose¶

🧩 Strategic Role in the Factory¶

📍 Position in Execution Flow¶

🛠 Why This Agent Is Critical¶

🧠 Sample Use Case¶

✅ Summary¶

🏭 Strategic Position in the Factory¶

🔁 Integration with Factory Workflow¶

🔗 Core Integration Points¶

🔁 Downstream Consumers of Test Artifacts¶

🧠 Enrichment Role¶

🧱 Placement by Code Layer¶

📦 Generated File Locations¶

🔁 Trigger Scenarios¶

✅ Summary¶

📋 Responsibilities¶

🎯 Key Responsibilities Breakdown¶

🧩 Test Artifacts the Agent Creates¶

🧠 Example Responsibilities in Action¶

📦 Integration into CI/CD and Studio¶

🔄 Reactive Responsibilities (on Retry)¶

✅ Summary¶

📥 Inputs¶

📦 Primary Input Categories¶

🧠 Input Example: Ports Configuration¶

📄 Blueprint & Trace ID Context¶

🔍 Controller Source Example¶

📘 Validator Class Input¶

📁 Input Artifacts Summary¶

✅ Summary¶

📤 Outputs¶

📦 Output Categories¶

📁 Directory Output Example¶

📘 Sample Output: Unit Test (MSTest)¶

📘 Sample Output: BDD .feature¶

📑 test-metadata.yaml¶

📈 Coverage Trace Output¶

📄 Studio Snapshot Example (Markdown)¶

✅ Summary¶

🔁 Process Flow (High-Level)¶

🧬 High-Level Flow Diagram¶

🔁 Step-by-Step Flow Summary¶

🧠 Example Trigger and Execution¶

🧠 Alternate Entry Points¶

🧠 Agent Guarantees¶

✅ Summary¶

🔄 Process Flow (Detailed Lifecycle)¶

🧬 Detailed Lifecycle Diagram¶

🧠 Phase-by-Phase Skill Execution¶

📘 Example Execution Trace¶

🔁 Conditional Logic¶

🧠 Input/Output Per Skill¶

🛠 Re-entrant and Idempotent Design¶

✅ Summary¶

🧩 Skills and Kernel Functions¶

🔧 Core Skills Summary¶

📘 Kernel Function Signatures (Examples)¶

🔁 Reusability and Composability¶

📄 Example: GenerateHandlerTests¶

📊 Skill Metadata Attached to Each Output¶

🧠 Specialized Sub-Skills¶

📌 Execution Control¶

✅ Summary¶

🧪 Supported Test Types¶

🧱 Test Categories by Layer¶

📦 Output Test Artifacts by Type¶

🧪 Example: Unit Test Coverage¶

📘 Example: Role-Based Access Test (Integration)¶

🧾 Example: BDD Scenario¶

🧠 Traceability per Test¶

📈 Quality Enforcement¶

✅ Summary¶

📘 Blueprint-Aware Test Generation¶

🧩 How Blueprint Awareness Works¶

📄 Example Blueprint Input¶

🎯 Benefits of Blueprint Alignment¶

🧠 Blueprint Enriched Test Tags¶

📘 Sample Test Plan Emitted¶

✅ Summary¶

📘 Sample Output: BDD `.feature`¶

📑 `test-metadata.yaml`¶

📄 Example: `GenerateHandlerTests`¶

Edition: `lite`¶

Edition: `enterprise`¶

🧾 Example: `test-metadata.yaml`¶

✅ BDD `.feature` File¶

Suggested `.feature` Scenarios¶