<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Nikolay Chernev</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Nikolay Chernev (@nikolay_chernev_a67479931).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/nikolay_chernev_a67479931</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/nikolay_chernev_a67479931"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>Your AI wrote 40 tests. How many would catch a real bug?</title>
      <dc:creator>Nikolay Chernev</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 09:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/nikolay_chernev_a67479931/your-ai-wrote-40-tests-how-many-would-catch-a-real-bug-16df</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/nikolay_chernev_a67479931/your-ai-wrote-40-tests-how-many-would-catch-a-real-bug-16df</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Your AI assistant just generated a full test suite. It's green. Ship it?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Here's the uncomfortable part: a passing run confuses three different claims, and only the last one earns trust.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;The test runs.&lt;/strong&gt; It executes without error. Table stakes.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;The test agrees with the code.&lt;/strong&gt; The assertions mirror the implementation — including its bugs.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;The test tells right from wrong.&lt;/strong&gt; It fails when the behavior is wrong.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;AI output routinely earns #1 and #2 and skips #3. Accept it anyway and your confidence is &lt;em&gt;borrowed&lt;/em&gt; — trust in the generator standing in for proof from the test.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  See it in 10 minutes
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I built a tiny lab you can run yourself (no deps, Node 20+):&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;node run-lab.js all
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;It gives the AI's own suite a pricing function with four seeded defects, then runs an independent verification suite against the same broken code:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;WEAK TESTS (the AI's suite) .... PASS 3/3
STRONG VERIFICATION ........... FAIL 8/12   &amp;lt;- catches all 4 defects
MUTATION GATE ................. PASS 4/4
LAB GATE: PASS
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;The AI's tests pass against code that's wrong. Verification fails — and that failure is the evidence you actually needed.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The fix is a habit, not a tool
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Before you trust a generated test, challenge it with a relevant defect: &lt;em&gt;what realistic wrong implementation would still pass this?&lt;/em&gt; If nothing you can think of would make it fail, the test isn't discriminating — it's decoration. Design the discriminating test first, then generate, then prove it catches the fault.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That loop — clarify, generate, run, &lt;strong&gt;critique&lt;/strong&gt;, repair, review, and a human decides — is the whole method. The generator never approves its own work; an independent reviewer (a different model or session) checks it; seeded defects and mutation testing prove the suite detects faults.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Run it, then go deeper
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The lab is free and self-contained: &lt;a href="https://github.com/chernevnikolay86-wq/ai-test-verification-lab" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://github.com/chernevnikolay86-wq/ai-test-verification-lab&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I turned the full method into a book + runnable kit — labs across unit, web/API, instrument-cluster and CAN/UDS domains, a prompt+agent kit, a governed setup builder, and an offline-model chapter for teams that can't send code to a cloud. It's $19: &lt;a href="https://nikolaychernev.gumroad.com/l/ai-testing-in-practice" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://nikolaychernev.gumroad.com/l/ai-testing-in-practice&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Honest caveat: the systems under test are simulators with &lt;em&gt;declared&lt;/em&gt; defects — they prove the method catches faults, not that any real product is certified. That's the point of the book: don't trust things that merely look right.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>testing</category>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>javascript</category>
      <category>qa</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
