audit-ng-spec-skill

Prompt file imported from infonl/dimpact-zaakafhandelcomponent (.claude/commands/audit-ng-spec-skill.md). Fill in {{arguments}} before use. Copyright stays with the author.

Angular Spec Auditor

Independently audit an Angular component spec file against the project's migration guidelines.

Usage: /audit-ng-spec-skill {{arguments}} {{arguments}} = path to the spec file (relative from repo root), e.g. src/main/app/src/app/taken/taken-vrijgeven-dialog/taken-vrijgeven-dialog.component.spec.ts

If {{arguments}} is omitted, ask the user for the spec path before proceeding.

You did NOT write this spec. Treat it with completely fresh eyes.

Step 1 — Read context

1. Read .claude/rules/angular-specs.md.
2. Read the spec at {SPEC_PATH}.
3. Derive the component path from the spec path (same directory, .component.ts instead of .component.spec.ts), read it.
4. Derive the template path (.component.html), read it if it exists.
5. From src/main/app/, run the check that CI applies to a touched spec, and treat every problem it reports as a FAIL: ESLINT_USE_FLAT_CONFIG=false npx eslint -c .eslintrc.strict-specs.js <spec path relative to src/main/app>. It already covers any, NO_ERRORS_SCHEMA, DOM queries outside Testing Library (By.css, querySelector, node access such as .children or .closest()), fireEvent instead of userEvent.setup(), rendering in beforeEach, and object literals cast through unknown. Fix those as .claude/rules/angular-specs.md describes; never replace one banned query with another. It does not catch debugElement.query(By.directive(…)) or within(fixture.nativeElement); mark those FAIL yourself.

Step 2 — Audit

For each item, mark PASS or FAIL with a one-line reason and the exact line(s) involved.

Rules

• No : void return type annotations anywhere in the spec
• No trivial smoke tests (it("should create", ...) or similar)
• Variable naming: no single-letter or abbreviated names (el, f, res, btn). Use full descriptive names (element, fixtureRef, result, button).
• SPDX header: new file → <current year> INFO.nl only; existing file → INFO.nl added only if completely absent from the existing line

Spec structure

• describe(ClassName.name, ...) — class name reference, not a string literal
• declarations: [Component] used (component is standalone: false), OR imports: [Component] if already standalone
• Services should use TestBed.inject() + jest.spyOn() — avoid useValue: mockObject.
  • Reason: type safety. useValue accepts any object — typos, missing methods, wrong return types all silently pass. jest.spyOn is checked against the real service type, so the compiler catches mismatches.
  • Strongly preferred pattern:

    providers: [provideHttpClient(), provideRouter([]), MyService],
    // ...
    myService = TestBed.inject(MyService);
    jest.spyOn(myService, "someMethod").mockReturnValue(of(result));

  • useValue is acceptable when genuinely difficult to avoid (e.g. a service with a deeply complex DI tree that cannot be satisfied without significant setup). Flag it with a comment explaining why.
  • Always acceptable exceptions: Angular built-in injection tokens (MAT_DIALOG_DATA, LOCALE_ID, APP_BASE_HREF, etc.) where no real class exists to inject.
  • TranslateService → use provideTranslateService() in providers, then TestBed.inject(TranslateService) + jest.spyOn.
  • Services using ZacHttpClient → add provideHttpClient() to providers.
  • Services using Router → add provideRouter([]) to providers.
• provideHttpClient() present if any service in the tree uses ZacHttpClient
• provideRouter([]) present if any service in the tree uses Router

Coverage

• Every test asserts meaningful behaviour
• ≥90% of template behaviours covered (buttons, conditionals, outputs, form states)
• Protected/private members accessed via bracket notation: component["member"]

Step 3 — Fix

For each FAIL: edit the spec file with the correct fix. Do NOT touch any component source files.

After all fixes are applied, re-read the spec to confirm no violations remain.

Step 4 — Report

AUDIT: PASS                         (if nothing needed fixing)
AUDIT: PASS (N issues fixed)        (if fixes were applied)

Issues fixed:
- Line X: <description of fix>
- ...

If a violation cannot be auto-fixed (e.g. missing test coverage that requires understanding domain logic), list it as a manual action required item and do not mark the audit PASS until the user addresses it.