Source profileQuality 91/100

chrisbanes/skills/skills/compose-ui-testing-patterns/SKILL.md

compose-ui-testing-patterns

Use when writing or reviewing Jetpack Compose UI tests, screenshot tests, previews, semantics assertions, fake image loading, keyboard input, focus assertions, interaction state (hover/pressed/focused), or tests for plain state-driven UI composables.

Source repository stars
983
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-24
Source checked
2026-08-25

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Use when writing or reviewing Jetpack Compose UI tests, screenshot tests, previews, semantics assertions, fake image loading, keyboard input, focus assertions, interaction state (hover/pressed/focused), or tests for plain state-driven UI composables.

Best for

  • Use when writing or reviewing Jetpack Compose UI tests, screenshot tests, previews, semantics assertions, fake image loading, keyboard input, focus assertions, interaction state (hover/pressed/focused), or tests for pla…

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/chrisbanes/skills --skill "skills/compose-ui-testing-patterns"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "compose-ui-testing-patterns" from https://github.com/chrisbanes/skills/blob/948acbbd6c444d9aef46ef96fa981ea440e0cf0d/skills/compose-ui-testing-patterns/SKILL.md at commit 948acbbd6c444d9aef46ef96fa981ea440e0cf0d. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Procedure

    1. State the behavior and test concern the task asks you to prove. 2. Inspect the existing test against that concern and choose the smallest sufficient seam from the table below. 3. Keep focused edits within the requested test concern. Do not move test-only helpers into producti…

    State the behavior and test concern the task asks you to prove.Inspect the existing test against that concern and choose the smallestKeep focused edits within the requested test concern. Do not move test-only
  2. 02

    Red flags during review

    "This UI test is flaky because images load slowly."

    "This UI test is flaky because images load slowly."A test uses production DI for simple rendering.A screenshot has random dates, clocks, remote images, or live data.
  3. 03

    Core principle

    Test the smallest UI contract that proves the behavior. Prefer plain state-driven UI tests with callbacks. Add integration only when lifecycle, navigation, DI, or platform behavior is the thing under test.

    Test the smallest UI contract that proves the behavior. Prefer plain state-driven UI tests with callbacks. Add integration only when lifecycle, navigation, DI, or platform behavior is the thing under test.
  4. 04

    Test target choice

    Review the “Test target choice” section in the pinned source before continuing.

    Review and apply the “Test target choice” source section.
  5. 05

    Prefer plain UI tests

    If the screen has a state holder/UI split, test the plain UI composable:

    If the screen has a state holder/UI split, test the plain UI composable:This avoids constructing ViewModels, components, repositories, navigation, and dependency graphs for layout behavior.

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score91/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars983SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
chrisbanes/skills
Skill path
skills/compose-ui-testing-patterns/SKILL.md
Commit
948acbbd6c444d9aef46ef96fa981ea440e0cf0d
License
Apache-2.0
Collected
2026-08-25
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Compose: UI testing patterns

Core principle

Test the smallest UI contract that proves the behavior. Prefer plain state-driven UI tests with callbacks. Add integration only when lifecycle, navigation, DI, or platform behavior is the thing under test.

Procedure

  1. State the behavior and test concern the task asks you to prove.
  2. Inspect the existing test against that concern and choose the smallest sufficient seam from the table below.
  3. Keep focused edits within the requested test concern. Do not move test-only helpers into production or broaden production APIs unless that production boundary is itself under test.
  4. Drive controlled state or input, synchronize through Compose when needed, and assert an observable semantic, visual, or callback result.
  5. Finish with no edit when the existing test already uses the narrowest valid seam and proves the requested behavior.

Test target choice

What you need to proveTest shape
Text, button, loading/error branch, conditional contentPlain UI Compose test
Callback wiring from click/inputPlain UI Compose test
Focus navigation or keyboard behaviorCompose test with key input
Visual layout, clipping, elevation, typography, image compositionScreenshot test
State holder updates UI correctlyState holder/unit test plus one wiring smoke test
Hover, pressed, focused, dragged interaction statePlain UI test with MutableInteractionSource
Navigation, lifecycle, DI integrationIntegration test

Prefer plain UI tests

If the screen has a state holder/UI split, test the plain UI composable:

composeTestRule.setContent {
    ProfileScreen(
        state = ProfileUiState(name = "Ada", canSave = true),
        onNameChange = {},
        onSaveClick = { saved = true },
        onBackClick = {},
    )
}

composeTestRule.onNodeWithText("Ada").assertIsDisplayed()
composeTestRule.onNodeWithText("Save").performClick()

assertThat(saved).isTrue()

This avoids constructing ViewModels, components, repositories, navigation, and dependency graphs for layout behavior.

Semantics first

Assert semantics when behavior is semantic:

  • Text exists: onNodeWithText.
  • Button is enabled/disabled: assertIsEnabled, assertIsNotEnabled.
  • Content is selected/focused/toggled: use semantics assertions.
  • Content is absent: assertDoesNotExist.

Use test tags for nodes that have no stable user-visible text or where multiple nodes share text. Do not use tags as the first choice for all assertions; user-visible semantics are usually stronger.

Callback testing

Use simple counters or captured values:

var selectedId: String? = null

composeTestRule.setContent {
    ItemList(
        items = listOf(ItemUi("movie-1", "Movie")),
        onItemClick = { selectedId = it },
    )
}

composeTestRule.onNodeWithText("Movie").performClick()

assertThat(selectedId).isEqualTo("movie-1")

For plain captured callback values, a direct assertion after the action is usually enough. Use runOnIdle when the assertion needs Compose to finish applying snapshot state, recomposition, or queued UI work before reading the result.

Keep UI tests deterministic

For layout, branch, and callback behavior, render controlled state with setContent instead of constructing the production app graph. Production DI, repositories, lifecycle observers, and background effects add asynchronous work that is irrelevant to a plain UI contract and can make the test flaky.

Do not use Thread.sleep to wait for Compose. Drive the UI to a known state, then use semantic assertions and Compose synchronization (waitForIdle, runOnIdle, or a bounded waitUntil for a real asynchronous condition). Reserve full-app integration for behavior that actually depends on navigation, lifecycle, DI, or platform wiring.

Interaction state with MutableInteractionSource

When a composable's appearance or behavior depends on interaction state (hover, focus, press, drag), inject a MutableInteractionSource and emit the desired state directly. Do not try to simulate pointer/mouse events to trigger interaction states — that approach is fragile, environment-dependent, and produces flaky tests.

val interactionSource = MutableInteractionSource()

composeTestRule.setContent {
    OutlinedButton(
        onClick = {},
        interactionSource = interactionSource,
    )
}

// Assert default (un-hovered) state
composeTestRule.onNodeWithText("OutlinedButton").assertIsDisplayed()

// Emit hover — interactionSource.emit is a suspend function,
// so call it from a test coroutine scope.
TestScope().launch {
    interactionSource.emit(HoverInteraction.Enter())
}

composeTestRule.waitForIdle()

// Assert the visual/semantic change that hover produces
// (e.g., border color, elevation, or capture for screenshot test)
composeTestRule.onNodeWithText("OutlinedButton").assertIsDisplayed()

The same pattern works for PressInteraction.Press / Release / Cancel, FocusInteraction.Focus / Unfocus, and DragInteraction.Start / Stop / Cancel. Emit the entry interaction, waitForIdle, then assert the result.

Key points:

  • Always inject MutableInteractionSource rather than relying on the default internal source. This gives you full control over state transitions.
  • Emit interactions from a coroutine scope (e.g. TestScope().launch { }) since emit is a suspend function. Do not use LaunchedEffect — that is a production Compose effect, not a test tool.
  • Assert the result of the interaction (visual change, semantic change, enabled state), not the interaction itself. The interaction source is a test driver, not the assertion target.
  • Use this for screenshot tests too — emit the interaction state, then capture the screenshot for a deterministic hover/press/focus visual.

Keyboard and focus

For keyboard, TV, and desktop UI, drive navigation with the same input model users use (keys/D-pad), not clicks alone. Assert focused semantics, not colors or scale; reserve screenshots for visual focus treatment.

Details—focus graph, FocusRequester, restoration, key handlers, and test patterns: compose-focus-navigation.

Screenshot tests

Use screenshots for visual contracts that semantics cannot prove:

  • Layout spacing/alignment.
  • Themed colors, typography, elevation, shadows.
  • Image composition, gradients, overlays.
  • Focus highlight appearance.
  • Loading skeletons or dense visual states.

Keep screenshot state deterministic:

  • Use fixed state data.
  • Freeze clocks or animation progress when possible.
  • Replace network/image loading with fake or preview handlers.
  • Avoid asserting dynamic text such as current time unless controlled.

Fake images and platform services

When image content is irrelevant, fake the loader and assert the requested model if that is the behavior. The exact hook depends on your image library; a project helper might look like this:

val requestedModels = mutableListOf<Any?>()

// Example helper, not a Compose API.
setContentWithFakeImageLoader { request ->
    requestedModels += request.data
    errorPainter()
}

When image appearance matters, provide a deterministic local painter/bitmap instead of network data.

Common mistakes

MistakeFix
Constructing full app graph to test an error rowTest plain UI with state = Error
Testing click behavior through a ViewModel mockPass a callback and assert it was invoked
Screenshot test for simple text presenceUse semantics assertion
Semantics test for padding/color/focus ringUse screenshot test
Test tags everywherePrefer text/content description/role when stable
UI test depends on real image loading/network/timeFake or freeze the source
Sleeping after an action before asserting UIUse semantics plus waitForIdle, runOnIdle, or bounded waitUntil
Production DI or app wiring for a state/rendering assertionRender controlled state with setContent; use integration only when that wiring is under test
Simulating hover/press/focus with mouse or touch eventsInject MutableInteractionSource and emit the interaction
Relying on the default InteractionSource in testsPass MutableInteractionSource so you can control state
TV/keyboard UI tested with performClick onlyUse key input and focus assertions; see compose-focus-navigation

Red flags during review

  • "This UI test is flaky because images load slowly."
  • A test uses production DI for simple rendering.
  • A screenshot has random dates, clocks, remote images, or live data.
  • Assertions only check that a node exists after performing an action, not that the callback/state change happened.
  • Focus behavior is visually inspected but not asserted.
  • A test uses performMouseInput or touch injection to trigger hover/press states instead of MutableInteractionSource.emit.
  • A composable accepts interactionSource but tests don't inject MutableInteractionSource.
  • A plain rendering test starts the production app or uses Thread.sleep before asserting.

RED/GREEN agent scenarios

  1. RED launches a production app, waits with Thread.sleep, and only asserts that a node exists. GREEN renders fixed state with setContent, drives the action, synchronizes through Compose, and asserts the semantic state or callback result.
  2. Novel case: a screen's repository-backed state holder starts background work, but the test only needs to prove a disabled Save button. GREEN tests the plain UI state directly; a separate integration test covers the state-holder wiring if needed.
  3. Counterexample: navigation behavior depends on a real NavController lifecycle. GREEN uses an integration test rather than pretending a plain rendering test proves that contract.
  4. Focused counterexample: a value-only formatter test already uses a plain unit test and the task asks only whether it needs a UI harness. GREEN leaves the test-local helper and workspace unchanged.

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the compose-ui-testing-patterns source document cover?

Use when writing or reviewing Jetpack Compose UI tests, screenshot tests, previews, semantics assertions, fake image loading, keyboard input, focus assertions, interaction state (hover/pressed/focused), or tests for plain state-driven UI composables.

How do I install compose-ui-testing-patterns?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/chrisbanes/skills --skill "skills/compose-ui-testing-patterns". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 10045,511

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

ab-testing

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

Computed 1008

narrative-io/narrative-skills-marketplace

design-analysis

Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "

Computed 9980

vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public

qa-testing-ios

Guides iOS testing with XCTest, XCUITest, Swift Testing, simctl, and xcresult. Use when choosing destinations, controlling flakes, or parsing test artifacts for native apps.

Computed 9880

vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public

foundations-consumer-neuroscience

Consumer-neuroscience primitives for attention, arousal, bonding, narrative, memory, and reward. Use when shaping ethical UX, neuro study design, or DMCC/AI Act gates.