property-based-testing
Writes, reviews, and debugs property-based tests — Hypothesis, fast-check, proptest, jqwik, rapid, and Echidna or Medusa for Solidity invariants. Use whenever tests should cover a whole input domain instead of a hand-picked list of examples: encode/decode and serialize/deserialize pairs, parsers, ca
- 0
- Installs
- —
- Rating
- —
- Success rate
- 8
- Files scanned
Security scan
Scan passedNo risky patterns were found in the scanned files.
Content sha256 f292b9d057c28bc8… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.
Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source
SKILL.md
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
| Property | Formula | Where it applies |
|---|---|---|
| Roundtrip | decode(encode(x)) == x | Serialization, conversion pairs |
| Inverse | f(g(x)) == x | encrypt/decrypt, compress/decompress |
| Oracle | new(x) == reference(x) | Optimization, refactoring, reimplementation |
| Idempotence | f(f(x)) == f(x) | Normalization, formatting, sorting |
| Invariant | Holds before and after | Any transformation, contract state |
| Easy to verify | is_sorted(sort(x)) | Complex algorithms with cheap checkers |
| Commutativity | f(a, b) == f(b, a) | Binary and set operations |
| Associativity | f(f(a,b), c) == f(a, f(b,c)) | Combining operations |
| Identity | f(x, e) == x | Operations 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 + brestates 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 whenfis 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-contradictoryassume()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:
| Task | File |
|---|---|
| Writing new tests, designing strategies | references/generating.md |
| The code has no property to assert yet | references/refactoring.md |
| Reviewing existing property tests | references/reviewing.md |
| A property test just failed | references/interpreting-failures.md |
| Library choice, Echidna and Medusa | references/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.
Files
8- README.md
ffbe30eec015.0 KB - SKILL.md
9448cacb654.2 KB - agents/openai.yaml
51d635deef254 B - references/generating.md
c0e72dfc892.6 KB - references/interpreting-failures.md
dbae7db8773.3 KB - references/libraries.md
f7218acf8e2.9 KB - references/refactoring.md
6eb5c206f54.7 KB - references/reviewing.md
110b08118a2.8 KB
Agent reviews
0No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.
More from trailofbits/skills8
Builds and runs code under AddressSanitizer to catch buffer overflows, use-after-free, and other memory errors during fuzzing or tests. Covers -fsanitize=address builds, ASAN_OPTIONS, reading the crash report, LeakSanitizer, and the overhead and platform trade-offs. Use when fuzzing C/C++ or Rust th
Sets up and runs AFL++ for multi-core fuzzing of C/C++ projects built with afl-clang-fast or afl-gcc-fast. Covers instrumentation modes, parallel main and secondary campaigns, persistent mode, corpus minimization, and crash triage. Use when scaling fuzzing across cores, fuzzing a mature C/C++ codeba
Audits GitHub Actions workflows for security vulnerabilities in AI agent integrations including Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub AI Inference. Detects attack vectors where attacker-controlled input reaches AI agents running in CI/CD pipelines, including env var intermediary p
Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access control issues. Use when auditing Algorand projects (TEAL/PyTeal).
Sets up and runs Atheris, the coverage-guided Python fuzzer built on libFuzzer. Covers TestOneInput harnesses, FuzzedDataProvider, instrumenting both pure Python and native C extensions, and running under AddressSanitizer. Use when fuzzing a Python package, hunting memory corruption in a Python C ex
Augments Trailmark code graphs with external audit findings from SARIF static analysis results, weAudit annotation files, and version-gated Trailmark 0.4.x binary-analysis graph exports. Maps findings to graph nodes by file and line overlap, creates severity-based subgraphs, and enables cross-refere
Understand a codebase before looking for bugs in it - what each function assumes, what it guarantees, and what it depends on elsewhere. Use when starting an audit, threat model, or architecture review on unfamiliar code, and before any vulnerability-hunting pass.
Prepares codebases for security review using Trail of Bits' checklist. Helps set review goals, runs static analysis tools, increases test coverage, removes dead code, ensures accessibility, and generates documentation (flowcharts, user stories, inline comments). Use when preparing your own codebase