SkillAgentSearch skills...

exp-mock-usage-analysis

Audits .NET test mock usage by tracing each mock setup through the production code's execution path to find dead, unreachable, redundant, or replaceable mocks

Install / Use

npx skills add dotnet/skills --skill exp-mock-usage-analysis

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

87/100

Supported Platforms

Universal

Our assessment of exp-mock-usage-analysis

exp-mock-usage-analysis scores 87/100 on our quality scale, 82nd of 155 Customer Support skills we index.

Its SKILL.md is 5.7 KB long, well organised into 11 sections and no code examples: a solid amount of guidance for an agent.

With 5,471 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.

Substance
26/30
Structure
13/20
Description
15/15
Adoption
16/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated 2 days ago, so exp-mock-usage-analysis is actively maintained.
  • It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
  • Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

exp-mock-usage-analysis compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than exp-mock-usage-analysis; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
exp-mock-usage-analysis (this skill)by dotnet875.5k2d agoSKILL.md
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k4d agoSKILL.md
pptxby anthropics100177.9k4d agoSKILL.md
designby nextlevelbuilder100130.2k5d agoSKILL.md
ui-ux-pro-maxby nextlevelbuilder100130.2k5d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install exp-mock-usage-analysis?
Run npx skills add dotnet/skills --skill exp-mock-usage-analysis. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does exp-mock-usage-analysis work with?
It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is exp-mock-usage-analysis safe to use?
It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is exp-mock-usage-analysis still maintained?
The repository was last updated 2 days ago, so exp-mock-usage-analysis is actively maintained.

name: exp-mock-usage-analysis description: "Audits .NET test mock usage by tracing each mock setup through the production code's execution path to find dead, unreachable, redundant, or replaceable mocks. Use when the user asks to audit mock usage, find unused or unnecessary mock setups, check if mocks are needed, reduce mock duplication or over-mocking, simplify test setup, or review whether mock configurations like ILogger/IOptions should use real implementations instead. Supports Moq, NSubstitute, and FakeItEasy." license: MIT

Mock Usage Analysis

Trace each mock setup through the production code's execution path to determine which setups are actually exercised at runtime and which are dead, unreachable, redundant, or replaceable with real implementations.

When to Use

  • User asks to audit, review, or analyze mock usage in .NET tests
  • User wants to find unused, unnecessary, or redundant mock setups
  • User wants to simplify test setup or reduce over-mocking
  • User asks whether mocks of ILogger, IOptions, or similar types are needed

When Not to Use

  • User wants to write new mocks or tests (general testing guidance)
  • User wants to detect non-mock test anti-patterns (use test-anti-patterns)
  • User wants to migrate between mock frameworks (out of scope)

Inputs

| Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | Test code | Yes | Test files to analyze | | Production code | Yes | Code under test — essential for tracing execution paths |

Workflow

Step 1: Read all provided code

Read the test files and always read the production code. You cannot determine whether a mock setup is necessary without understanding the production method's control flow.

Identify the mock framework by scanning for its patterns:

  • Moq: new Mock<T>(), .Setup(...), .Verify(...)
  • NSubstitute: Substitute.For<T>(), .Returns(...), .Received(...)
  • FakeItEasy: A.Fake<T>(), A.CallTo(...), .MustHaveHappened()

Use the correct framework's terminology throughout your analysis.

Step 2: Trace each mock setup through the production code

For each test method, do the following:

  1. Identify every mock setup line (.Setup, .Returns, A.CallTo, etc.)
  2. Read the production method being tested and trace its execution path for the specific inputs used in that test
  3. Determine which mock setups are actually reached during execution
  4. Classify each setup:

| Classification | Meaning | Example | |---------------|---------|---------| | Used | The production code calls this mock during the test's execution path | GetStock setup when Reserve is called and stock is sufficient | | Unreachable | The production code returns early, throws, or branches away before reaching this mock call | UpdateStock setup when the test expects the method to throw ArgumentOutOfRangeException on the first line | | Unused | The mock method is never called by the production method under test at all, regardless of inputs | GetLowStockProducts setup when testing Reserve, which never calls that method | | Redundant | Identical mock configurations are duplicated across multiple tests instead of being shared | Five tests each creating new Mock<IPaymentGateway>() with the same default setup |

Pay special attention to:

  • Early returns and guard clauses — setups for mocks called after a guard clause are unreachable when the guard triggers
  • Exception throws — if the method throws before using dependencies, all setups for those dependencies are unnecessary
  • Branch-specific logic — if a method dispatches by channel/type, setups for other channels are unused
  • Verify-only tests — tests that only call .Verify/.Received/.MustHaveHappened without asserting on the method's return value

Step 3: Check for replaceable mocks

Flag mocks of stable framework types that should use real implementations:

  • Mock<ILogger<T>> → NullLogger<T>.Instance (unless log output is asserted)
  • Mock<IOptions<T>> → Options.Create(new T { ... })
  • Mocks of DTOs, records, or value objects → use new T { ... } directly

Explicitly confirm which mocks are correctly placed — external boundaries (databases, HTTP clients, message queues, third-party APIs) and security-sensitive types should remain mocked.

Step 4: Report findings

For each finding, state:

  1. The specific test method and mock setup line
  2. Why the setup is unnecessary (trace the production code path to explain)
  3. A concrete fix — which lines to remove, what to replace them with, or how to extract shared setup

When multiple tests duplicate mock configurations, provide a before/after example showing how to extract shared setup into a fixture or helper method.

Validation

  • [ ] Production code was read and execution paths were traced (not just test code reviewed)
  • [ ] Every finding references a specific test method and setup line
  • [ ] Unreachable setups include an explanation of which production code path makes them unreachable
  • [ ] Correctly-placed mocks (external boundaries) are explicitly noted as appropriate
  • [ ] Correct framework terminology is used throughout (not mixing Moq/NSubstitute/FakeItEasy terms)

Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Solution | |---------|----------| | Analyzing test code without reading production code | Always read the production method to trace which mocks are actually called | | Flagging mocks for external boundaries (HTTP, DB) | These are valid isolation boundaries — keep them mocked | | Flagging ILogger mock when log output is asserted | Only flag when the mock is set up but log output is never verified | | Using wrong framework terminology | Match the framework in the code: Moq (Setup/Verify), NSubstitute (Returns/Received), FakeItEasy (A.CallTo/MustHaveHappened) |

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars5.5k
CategoryCustomer
Updated2d ago
Forks418

Languages

C#

Trust signals

100/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

No cautions