Proves software work: triages failing tests, checks whether a test can fail, and reads migrations.
Tewip (Uyghur téwip, تېۋىپ: healer, doctor) is the layer that proves software work - written by a person or by an agent.
It finds why each failing test failed (a real bug, a flaky test, the environment, test data, or a changed selector), says whether a test could ever fail at all, breaks your code to find out whether the tests would notice, reads what a migration will do to a live database, and gives one verdict on whether a change is done. Every answer carries its evidence and names what decided it: a deterministic rule, the AI model, or a person's correction.
What makes it worth installing is what it refuses to say. It answers "cannot say" rather than guessing, it will not narrow a test run it cannot prove safe to narrow, and every report ends with what it did not check. Each number below was measured on strangers' real code, never on fixtures.
It works for every stack: Node.js (node:test, Jest, Vitest, Mocha), Python (pytest, unittest), Java and Kotlin (JUnit, TestNG), Go, .NET, Ruby, PHP and Rust, each checked against its real runner's report (the full list), plus Playwright in depth with traces, selector drift and verified fixes. It also reads the failure wording of the browser and component-test tools on top of those runners (Selenium, WebdriverIO, Cypress, Testing Library for React, Vue and Angular, Vue Test Utils, jest-dom and Jasmine), checked against more than 500 real messages from public projects.
| Where | How |
|---|---|
| Terminal | npm install -g tewip-ai, then tewip explain report.xml, tewip ci owner/repo --pr 12, tewip mcp |
| VS Code, Cursor, Windsurf, VSCodium | the Tewip extension (download): registers Tewip with the editor's AI assistant and adds six commands - explain a report, why CI failed on this branch, the risk review of your change, which flaky tests to quarantine, the security check, and what your corrections add up to |
| JetBrains, Claude, other AI assistants | add the MCP server tewip mcp: fifteen tools, including has this happened here before?, is this requirement covered and passing? and what should be done next about this goal? (see editor setup) |
| Any model | OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, Azure, or a model on your own machine with Ollama (no account, nothing leaves the computer): TEWIP_PROVIDER |
| GitHub CI | the Tewip Action: a comment on every pull request, an optional merge gate, verified fix PRs (QUICKSTART) |
Formerly triage-agent: the repository moved to hmamut39/tewip, and GitHub redirects the old address. See ROADMAP.md for the plan.
Status: phases 1 to 14 are built; the two auto-fix phases (5 and 8) are the ones still in progress. Tewip collects failures from any framework, diagnoses them with rules first and a model only for what rules cannot settle, and turns that into work for each role: a CI comment and merge gate, test plans and verified tests, a flake dossier, a PR-risk review, security scanning, tickets in Jira, Rally, GitHub Issues, Azure Boards or Linear, checks generated from a Figma design, specifications written for people, and - opt in, and only when proved - fixes to test or application code. It runs live in GitHub CI and answers questions from AI assistants through MCP. On fresh real Gutenberg CI failures, with the pipeline frozen before labelling, accuracy is 93.4%; across six real datasets it ranges from 86.1% to 99.7%, and the caveats are in eval/README.md.
Most failures never reach a model. On 3,556 real CI failures from six public projects, the deterministic rules answered 75.1% on their own - and on the labelled ones they answered correctly 1,979 times out of 2,012 (98.4%). A rule-answered failure costs nothing, explains itself, and gives the same answer every time.
Only the remaining quarter is sent to a model, so triaging 1,000 real failures costs about $1.12 at gpt-5.4-mini's published price. That is measured, not estimated: three real uncached calls on held-out failures billed 3,624 prompt and 499 completion tokens each. A real week costs less, because a failure that repeats is answered from cache, and a failure someone has corrected never goes to the model again.
Tewip prints what every command costs, caps its own spend, and works with no key at all - the rules run on their own and everything they cannot settle is left as UNKNOWN rather than guessed.
Giving it to your team (or another company): TEAM-GUIDE.md — what to install, what each role uses it for, and what it never does.
Putting it on a real repository: QUICKSTART.md — ten minutes, copy-paste, and what to check on the first failing run.
Tell Playwright to write a blob report in CI. It's a built-in reporter, so there's no triage-agent code in your config:
// playwright.config.ts
reporter: process.env.CI ? [['list'], ['blob']] : 'list',
use: { trace: 'retain-on-failure' },
Then add one step after your tests:
permissions:
contents: write # only needed for autofix
pull-requests: write
issues: write
actions: read # lets it read the failed job's log when no test report was written
steps:
# ... checkout, install, npx playwright test ...
- name: triage-agent
if: always()
uses: hmamut39/tewip@main
with:
openai-api-key: ${{ secrets.OPENAI_API_KEY }} # optional: without it only the rules run
autofix: 'true' # optional: verified locator-fix PRs
On every run, the action:
fetch-depth: 0 on actions/checkout so the diff can be read;
without it the section is skipped rather than guessed at. Any such test also enters the attestation
as a refusal, so a release decision taken from the bundle cannot rest on a test that proves nothing.prove: true): breaks the source files the pull request touched
in small deliberate ways, runs the tests that cover them, and reports every change none of them
noticed - "these 2 changes to your code would have slipped past your tests", with the lines. Off by
default because each change costs a real test run; prove-budget (default 300s) caps the whole
thing, and it says which files it did not reach rather than implying they were clean. Every file is
put back exactly as it was. Each unnoticed change also enters the attestation as a refusal: a line
nothing checks is not a line this bundle can claim was verified.autofix: true): for drifted locators that the deterministic rule matched to a renamed element, it rewrites the locator, re-runs that test, and opens a separate pull request with the changes that passed. It never merges and never edits application code.tewip-report artifact./triage CATEGORY #n reason (e.g. /triage TIMING #2 flaky on CI). It stores that with the history and, next time that test fails the same way, gives the person's answer instead of its own, naming them and their reason. A corrected failure also costs nothing: it never goes to the model again.For senior engineers, architects and leads, add a scheduled workflow with mode: report, for example weekly. It builds the engineering-quality, architecture and risk-digest views from the stored CI history, reusing earlier diagnoses so it makes no repeat AI calls. The views are kept in one GitHub issue that each report updates:
on:
schedule: [{ cron: '0 6 * * 1' }]
workflow_dispatch:
permissions: { contents: read, issues: write }
jobs:
report:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: hmamut39/tewip@main
with: { mode: report }
The report reads the history cache of the branch it runs on, usually the default branch.
The repository needs "Allow GitHub Actions to create and approve pull requests" enabled for fix PRs. Pull requests opened by the workflow token don't trigger CI themselves; the agent verified each change by re-running the test before opening the PR. It was first proved end to end on a private practice repository, which is why there is no link to click here. If this repository is private, other repositories can only use the action when Settings → Actions → Access allows it.
claude plugin marketplace add hmamut39/tewip-plugin
claude plugin install tewip@tewip
That is the whole publication process. A marketplace is a .claude-plugin/marketplace.json file in a git
repository, so Tewip publishes one at
hmamut39/tewip-plugin - nobody has to approve it, and there
is nothing to pay for. That repository holds the plugin only: a manifest, three skills and a pointer to
the npm package, which is why this one can stay private. The plugin brings Tewip's MCP server and three skills that tell Claude Code when to use it:
before claiming a change is done, when a test fails, and when a change touches a migration. It costs
about 410 tokens per session until a skill is actually needed.
The MCP server runs from the published package (npx -y tewip-ai@latest mcp), so the plugin stays small
and you always get the current version.
Download tewip-0.5.0.vsix, then in the
editor press Ctrl+Shift+P and run Extensions: Install from VSIX…. It needs the command line:
npm install -g tewip-ai.
Press Ctrl+Shift+P and type "Tewip" for: Explain a test report…, Why did CI fail on this
branch?, Risk review of this change, Which flaky tests to quarantine, Check secrets and
dependencies, and What our corrections add up to. The editor's AI assistant also picks Tewip up
as an MCP server with nothing to configure.
It is not in the Visual Studio Marketplace: publishing there now requires an Azure subscription, which means a credit card for a free extension. The file above installs exactly the same thing.
mcp/server.ts is a read-only Model Context Protocol server. Anyone on the team can ask their own assistant about test failures, in the editor or chat they already use:
| Ask your assistant | Tool it uses |
|---|---|
| "Why did CI fail on PR 12 in our-org/web?" | github_ci_report: the latest CI report for that PR, plus any verified fix PR |
| "Explain the failing checkout test" | explain_failure: root cause, confidence, evidence, history on this commit vs others, next action |
| "What should I fix first from the last run?" | triage_board (SDET) · pr_impact (developer) |
| "Is the test environment broken?" | environment_report (DevOps / SRE) |
| "Can we release?" | release_readiness (business / UAT) |
| "Where is our test suite fragile?" | quality_report (senior / principal) · architecture_report (architect) · risk_digest (lead) |
| "Write a test plan for the checkout feature in C:\work\shop" | test_plan: risks and scenarios grounded in that project's tests, code and pages; saved in its .tewip folder |
Setup, after npm install:
tewip when asked. From anywhere else, run claude mcp add tewip -- tewip mcp (installed), or claude mcp add tewip -- node /path/to/tewip/mcp/server.ts (from a checkout).tewip and args ["mcp"], or command node with args ["/path/to/tewip/mcp/server.ts"] from a checkout.github_ci_report uses the gh CLI login on your machine. The other tools read the datasets under data/, and the AI layer uses OPENAI_API_KEY from .env.
VS Code, Cursor, Windsurf and VSCodium: install the Tewip extension (extensions/vscode, packaged as tewip-<version>.vsix: Extensions → … → Install from VSIX). It registers Tewip as an MCP server by itself, so the assistant can use it with no configuration, and adds two commands: Tewip: Explain a test report… and Tewip: Why did CI fail on this branch?
Every other MCP client (JetBrains IDEs 2025.2+, Claude Code, Claude Desktop, or an editor without the extension) takes one entry. With Tewip installed from its release file (npm install -g tewip-<version>.tgz), the command is simply tewip mcp; from a checkout, point at cli/tewip.ts:
Point the entry at this checkout with an absolute path (the server resolves its own data, so the editor's working directory does not matter). VS Code uses its own shape, with a servers key and a type; put it in the workspace's .vscode/mcp.json, or in your user-level configuration (command MCP: Open User Configuration) to have it in every window:
{
"servers": {
"tewip": { "type": "stdio", "command": "tewip", "args": ["mcp"] }
}
}
Cursor, Claude Desktop, Windsurf and most other clients use the mcpServers shape (Cursor: Settings → MCP):
{
"mcpServers": {
"tewip": { "command": "tewip", "args": ["mcp"] }
}
}
.mcp.json is already set up.Then ask, in plain language: "why did CI fail on my PR?", "which tests are flaky in checkout?", "is the main branch safe to release?". You can also ask it to "write a test plan for the checkout feature in C:\work\shop": the test_plan tool plans from that project's real tests, code and pages, and saves the plan in its .tewip folder. Every other tool is read-only, and github_ci_report reads the report the Action uploaded, so you can ask about a repository's CI without cloning it or opening the Actions page (it uses your gh login).
Run these inside your project. Both need OPENAI_API_KEY, and both print what they cost.
tewip plan "Checkout: a signed-in shopper pays by card and gets a receipt" --url http://localhost:3000/checkout
tewip write # tests for the plan's "to automate next" scenarios
tewip write --only CO-002,CO-004 --framework pytest
tewip plan reads what is really there: the tests you already have (in any language), the change (--diff main...HEAD), the live pages (what a user sees on each page, via Playwright), and the failures Tewip has diagnosed in this project before. The plan lists risks and scenarios by priority. A claim that a scenario is "already covered" is checked against your real test names, and dropped if no such test exists. Saved to .tewip/plans/ as Markdown to review and JSON for write.matrix-org/complement, NLnetLabs/domain,
Bioconductor/rhdf5, Try/OpenGothic and others. One pull request was titled "Resolve nightly
warnings" and the plan still found the behaviour change hidden inside it. The caveats are real
and written out in ROADMAP.md: nine judged pairs is a small sample, Claude did the
judging rather than each project's engineers, and the one miss is the interesting case - when a
pull request's intention is wrong, a plan grounded in that intention agrees with it.tewip write writes each scenario as a test in your framework and style: Playwright, Cypress, WebdriverIO, Angular, Jest, Vitest, pytest (with Selenium or Playwright), JUnit on Maven or Gradle (Selenium, Spring Boot), .NET or Go. It copies the style of an existing test and uses only elements seen on the real page. Front-end apps get component tests the way their own tests are written: React, Vue or Svelte with Testing Library under Jest or Vitest, and Angular through ng test (Karma and Jasmine, or Vitest). A project with both e2e and unit tests gets browser tests when the plan read pages, and unit or component tests when it did not. Then it runs the test. A draft is kept only if it passes every run (3 by default) and fails once its main check is broken on purpose, because a test that cannot fail is worse than no test. A failing draft is repaired from the real error, twice at most. If the test looks right and the app does something else, Tewip reports a possible bug instead of weakening the test until it passes. Kept tests are new files beside yours, for you to review and commit; nothing is committed, and no application code is touched.tewip design "https://www.figma.com/design/KEY/Checkout?node-id=12-34" --url http://localhost:3000/checkout
tewip design frame.json --frame "Sign in" # a saved frame, no Figma token needed
Tewip reads the frame (Figma's REST API, read only, TEWIP_FIGMA_TOKEN) and the running page
(its accessibility snapshot, which is what a screen reader and a test both see), and says where they
disagree: the design says button "Sign in", the page says button "Log in". It checks the words the
design specifies, the controls its layer names imply, and the regions its sections imply - never
pixels, colours or spacing, because a design tool and a browser do not measure those the same way.
No model is called, so it costs nothing and answers the same way every time.
Measured on four real design/page pairs (a public repository's Figma exports and the pages built from them): 38 checks, 0 differences reported on pages that match their design, 11 of 11 real drifts caught (a renamed control, a dropped sentence, a word swapped inside a sentence, a region that lost its markup) and 5 of 5 harmless changes ignored (capitals, extra spaces, a button implemented as a link, reordered sections). No designer has judged the output yet, so the roadmap's own metric is still open.
Tewip now reads Robot Framework's output.xml, JMeter's .jtl and a k6 summary as well as JUnit XML, TRX, NUnit and Playwright's own reports. A load test does not fail test by test, so a JMeter report becomes one line per request ("4 of 5 requests failed, an assertion failed") and a k6 run becomes one record per crossed threshold, with the number that crossed it.
Appium and Selenium need no importer: those suites report through Mocha, pytest or JUnit, which Tewip already reads, and their own error messages ("Could not find a connected device", "stale element reference") are already understood.
Each reader was checked against real reports published in public repositories, which is how three
defects were found before release - a Robot timestamp that is not a date, k6's numbers living under
values, and a JMeter line that read "mostly 200" when an assertion had failed.
tewip correct diagnosis "checkout charges twice" TEST_DATA "the fixture has stale prices"
tewip correct flaky "adds an item" fix-now "it is a real race, not flakiness"
tewip correct security "src/config.ts:12" noise "that is a sample key in a fixture"
tewip correct --list
Tewip answers with your decision from then on, and says it was yours: "TEST_DATA, confidence 1.00, source: corrected by a person". Corrections live in your project, so they belong to the team; the newest one wins, so changing your mind is just saying so again.
A correction changes what Tewip says, never what it does on its own — it will not change code, quarantine a test or file a ticket because you corrected it.
tewip learn # where Tewip is systematically wrong, from what you corrected
tewip learn --labels labels.jsonl # your corrections as labelled examples, to measure a change against
One correction fixes one failure. Twenty of them say which rule to change. tewip learn groups
them - "45x said REAL_BUG, you said TIMING; rule locator-drift decided 27 of them; from 11
different tests" - and points at the rule to read, with three of the real failures underneath.
It will not pretend. Fewer than three corrections of the same shape is "not yet a pattern", not a finding; when no single rule is behind a group it says a rule is missing rather than blaming one; and it tells you how many different tests a pattern came from, because one flaky test corrected six times is one piece of evidence, not six.
tewip build "naturalsize should take a sep argument that goes between the number and the unit"
tewip build --issue PROJ-123 # build from the ticket's own description and acceptance criteria
tewip build "..." --pr # commit the proved work on its own branch, open a draft PR
tewip build "..." --dry-run # prove it, show the patch, leave nothing on disk
Tewip writes the test first and runs it. If that test passes, it stops and keeps nothing — a test that passes before the feature exists is testing nothing. Then it writes the smallest code that makes the test pass, and keeps the work only if the new test passes and nothing that was passing has started to fail. Otherwise every file goes back byte for byte, including the test it wrote. Nothing is ever committed.
Tried on two real public projects: it added a trailing-slash rule to unjs/ufo (4 lines,
TypeScript, $0.18) and a sep argument to python-humanize (2 lines, Python, $0.10), each with
its own failing-then-passing test and the project's whole suite still green. Asked for something
that already worked, it stopped after one model call and kept nothing.
It also refuses a feature that does not belong here at all. Handed a real Apache ticket about a Flink HTTP sink, a URL library got an "HTTP sink" built into it - test passing, suite green, every proof rule held, because when Tewip writes both the test and the code it can always make a self-consistent pair pass. So before writing anything it now asks whether the words of the feature mean anything in this repository, and refuses for free when they do not.
The old promise was "it can't touch your code". The new one is "it can't change your code without showing you it works".
tewip review --diff main...HEAD
Which tests cover this change and how (they import the file, they import the package that exports it, or their words merely match); which of them have flaked before, so a red run is not blamed on your change; what has gone wrong in these areas before; what nothing tests at all; and the command to run the telling tests first. From your project's own history, so it costs nothing.
Measured on 16 real commits from two public projects, where the developers changed source and its test: given only the source files, Tewip named the right test in 16 of 16, ranked it first in 12.
It also shows the checks a change renegotiates — every test assertion the diff rewrites, withdraws or renames, with the old text beside the new one. A test written earlier is behaviour someone agreed on, and this is the one thing in a review that the change's own description cannot account for: everything else reads the change's account of itself. It never passes judgement — tests change for good reasons — it asks which of them the author intended.
Alongside it, the decisions a change alters outside its tests: a guard that refused something, a value other code falls back on, a limit that decides behaviour under load, a version or runner pinned on purpose. Same rule - only things that already existed, never additions - and the same question rather than a verdict.
Both came out of a measurement rather than an idea. Of 18 real pull requests later found to have broken something, the one Tewip's test plan missed was one whose intention was wrong: it changed a freshness rule, changed the tests to match, and was reverted the next day.
What these checks are not is a predictor, and the measurement says so plainly. On 14 pull
requests known to have caused a regression they speak up on 4; on 30 ordinary merged pull requests
from the same repositories, on 9 - 29% against 30%. A change that alters an agreement is not more
likely to be broken. What they do is put those alterations in front of a person: on the ordinary
set they surfaced 23 of them, among which a raise SystemExit guard that was deleted, a semaphore
dropped from 4 to 1, and a CI runner image moved. No model is called, so this costs nothing.
tewip flaky --days 30 # the dossier: quarantine, fix, or watch - with the evidence
tewip flaky --apply # writes the quarantine line into the test file
Other tools count retries. Tewip already decided why each failure happened, so it can say: this test failed in 161 of 647 runs across 109 different branches - that is the test, not your change - and quarantining it gives the team back 148 CI minutes a week. It refuses to hide a test that mostly fails (that one is broken, not flaky) and never quarantines a test whose failures looked like a real bug.
Measured on three real projects' CI history (Gutenberg twice, Supabase): 76 tests proposed for quarantine, zero of them containing a single real-bug failure, giving back roughly 34, 148 and 1,178 CI minutes a week. It also tells you when a quarantined test has stopped failing and should come back - the half nobody ever does.
tewip bugs report.xml --project SHOP # shows what it would file; nothing is created
tewip bugs report.xml --project SHOP --create # files them
tewip jira plan.json --export xray --out cases.csv # or --export zephyr
tewip bugs files a ticket only for failures it diagnosed as a real bug, with the error, the
evidence and the run link. A flaky test or a broken environment is deliberately not filed - that is
the point of diagnosing first. The same failure is never filed twice: the second sighting is a short
note on the ticket Tewip itself opened. A dry run needs no Jira account at all.
--export xray|zephyr writes the plan's scenarios as the CSV those tools import, one row per step.
No account, no network; importing stays your step.
tewip secure # secrets + npm audit / pip-audit / osv-scanner, triaged
tewip secure --url http://localhost:3000 # also check the running app
tewip secure --zap-report zap.json # and triage an OWASP ZAP baseline report
tewip secure --gate # fails a build only on what needs a person now
Scanners are good at finding things and bad at saying which of them matter. Tewip runs the ones your project already has and sorts every finding into act on this now, real but not reachable (a dev dependency, a package nothing imports, a file git does not track), noise (a placeholder from a README), or accepted (a person already judged it, in a file only people write). Each verdict carries the evidence. No model is called, so it costs nothing, and a credential is located, never printed.
With --url it also checks the running app the way a browser would: security headers, cookie
flags, and the files that must never be served (.env, .git). No payloads, no fuzzing, no login
bypass - and an address that is not your machine is refused unless you say --i-am-authorised.
For the deep scan it prints the OWASP ZAP command and triages ZAP's report rather than pretending
to be a scanner.
Measured on the gitleaks project's own labelled samples, for the credential kinds Tewip covers: 50 of 54 real credentials found. The web check found 8 of 8 planted weaknesses in two local apps and reported nothing about the carefully served one; on four real public homepages its report matched the headers those sites actually send, every time. Four defects that corpus exposed are fixed; the four still missed are things that are not credentials (an unsigned token, a Stripe test key). It never claims a project is secure - it prints what it checked and what it did not.
tewip spec "Readers can search the library and open a result"
tewip spec "..." --project PROJ # shows what it would file in Jira
tewip spec "..." --project PROJ --create # files the epic and its stories
An epic, user stories and Given / When / Then acceptance criteria, written from your code, your tests and your failure history. Anything it says the system already does carries a quote from a file it read, and Tewip checks that quote word by word; what it cannot quote becomes an open question instead of a confident sentence. It writes no estimates, dates or business cases, because it cannot check them.
Measured on three real projects: 15 stories, 49 acceptance criteria, and of 46 claims about existing behaviour, 22 were kept with a checkable quote and 24 were turned into open questions.
tewip report report.xml --gate # GitLab CI, Jenkins, CircleCI, Azure, Bitbucket, Travis, Drone
tewip watch --cmd "npm test" # beside your editor: explains each failure as it happens
tewip note --days 7 # the weekly quality note for a lead - free, no model calls
tewip report reads which CI it is in from that platform's own variables, prints the triage board,
writes it to a file, appends it to the job summary, and with --gate fails the build only on
failures that are not known flaky or environment noise. On GitLab it posts the diagnosis as one
merge-request note and edits that same note next run instead of piling up. With
TEWIP_SLACK_WEBHOOK or TEWIP_TEAMS_WEBHOOK it tells the team's chat - and says nothing at all
when no failure needs a person, so nobody mutes it.
tewip fix --code report.xml # shows the patch; your files are left as they were
tewip fix --code report.xml --apply # leaves the proved change in your working tree
Tewip has refused to touch application code since day one. This is the one exception, and it only
runs when you type --code. It takes a failure it diagnosed as a real bug (0.85 confidence or
more), finds the file the failure points at, asks for the smallest change, and then proves it: the
failing test must pass and the whole suite must still pass. It will not edit tests,
configuration, CI files, lockfiles, migrations or anything with secrets in it, because a test going
green after changing those proves nothing. If it cannot prove a change, it explains the bug instead
and puts your file back byte for byte. It never commits and never merges.
Measured by replaying 16 real bug fixes from two public repositories, in two languages: the commit before each fix, with only that fix's tests, so the real bug really reproduces.
| Project | Language | Bugs | Proved by the tests | Right file |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| unjs/ufo | TypeScript, Vitest | 8 | 8 | 8 of 8 |
| python-humanize/humanize | Python, pytest | 8 | 8 | 8 of 8 |
Every change is small (1 to 16 lines, median 4) and most are what the developers themselves wrote. No wrong fix was offered: anything that could not be proved was thrown away and the file put back byte for byte.
tewip attest --out attestation.md
Everything Tewip knows about a build, in one file: which tests ran, what each failure was, which rule or which model decided it, what it refused to decide, and what it never looked at. The refusals are the point - a tool that never says "I could not tell" has nothing worth attesting, because every line it writes might be a guess.
The bundle carries a digest, and an Ed25519 signature when you give it a key:
TEWIP_ATTEST_KEY=./private.pem tewip attest # sign it
tewip attest --verify attestation.json --key public.pem # check it
A digest is not a signature and Tewip says so: without a key it tells you the bundle is undamaged, not that nobody edited it. Editing a claim out of a signed bundle makes verification fail and exit non-zero. Every CI run writes one of these automatically.
tewip incident sentry-issue.json
Reads a Sentry payload, an OpenTelemetry span or a plain stack trace, finds the test that should have caught it, and answers with one of four verdicts: reproduced, passed (the test ran and did not catch it, which is worse news), failed differently, or never ran. It does not say "probably covered".
tewip recall "the login test that keeps flaking"
Every correction your team ever gave Tewip is kept. Ask, and it answers with your own decision from then, and says it was yours - not its. It never acts on a correction by itself.
tewip trace --only "SHOP-12"
Joins the test plans Tewip wrote to the tests that cover them and the runs that attempted them. A scenario counts as covered only when a real test can be named, and passing only when a real run attempted it; everything else says what is missing. No model, no cost.
tewip done --diff main...HEAD # one verdict
tewip done --prove --strict # also break the code, and fail the build unless ready
tewip done --json done.json # a sealed verdict that can be checked later
Tewip can answer six questions about a change. A team reviewing an agent's pull request has to run six
commands and assemble the answer themselves - which in practice means they run none and merge on a
green tick. done is the assembled answer:
# Is this work done? Not ready
| Question | Answer |
| Is anything failing? | not checked |
| Is the changed code tested? | yes |
| Can the tests in this change fail? | no |
| Would the tests catch a bug in this code? | no |
| Is what was asked for covered? | not checked |
That is a real run on a change where all three tests passed. One of them was assert.ok(true), and
three deliberate changes to the new code went unnoticed by the suite. CI was green; the work was not
done.
Nothing is judged here. Every answer comes from a layer with its own measured accuracy — the triage
rules, vouch, prove, trace — and this only puts them in a fixed, published order: what is broken,
then what cannot be believed, then what is missing. The same change always gets the same verdict.
"Cannot say" is a real answer, and it is never rounded up to ready. A verdict needs the two questions nothing can substitute for — is anything failing, and does anything actually test this code — to have been answered. If Tewip has never seen a test result for the project, it says so and refuses to approve; the first version of this answered "Ready, with 3 not checked", which is an approval assembled out of shrugs. Every verdict also ends with what it says nothing about, including the one thing no tool here can know: whether the change does what was intended.
With --json the verdict is sealed: editing not-ready to ready in the file makes verification
fail, so a verdict that travels into a ticket or a release note can be checked rather than trusted. It is
also an MCP tool, so an agent can ask whether its own work is done before saying that it is.
tewip access # every markup file in the project
tewip access src/components/Nav.tsx # or just one
tewip access --strict # fails the build on a barrier that stops somebody outright
Accessibility is the one quality question that is also a legal one. The European Accessibility Act has been enforceable since June 2025, and it lands on the people who already own testing.
The reason teams do not trust the tools they have is the reason they switch off every scanner: axe, Lighthouse and pa11y hand back several hundred undifferentiated violations, a large share of which are not barriers at all, and nobody has the afternoon it takes to sort them.
Tewip makes two kinds of statement and no third:
There is no "warning", because a warning is the category people learn to scroll past.
**6 barriers (5 that stop somebody outright), 18 for a person to settle.**
### button-name - 3 places
WCAG 2.2 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A), blocker.
Who it stops: a screen reader announces "button" and nothing else, so it cannot be used or spoken to.
- `components/VPNavBarAskAiButton.vue:2` <button type="button" class="VPNavBarAskAiButton">
- it contains no text and carries no aria-label, so it is announced with its role and nothing else
- do this: put text inside it, or add aria-label="..." saying what it does
Every finding names its WCAG 2.2 success criterion and level, which is what turns it into something you can put in front of a regulator instead of a note saying "bad contrast".
What it refuses to decide is the reason it is worth running. alt={caption} is not a missing alt.
A button whose text comes from a child component cannot be called empty. :aria-label="label" is a
label. <slot /> is content this file cannot see. Each of those becomes a question, never an accusation
— because a tool that accuses <img alt={alt} /> of having no alt text gets switched off in a day.
And every report prints what it did not check — contrast, focus order, meaningful sequence, whether the alt text is any good — because those need a rendered page. A clean result means these checks found nothing. It never means the product is accessible.
No browser, no server, no network, no model, no cost. 416 real files in 1.65 seconds.
Measured on four public projects, never on fixtures — excalidraw, bootstrap, vitepress and svelte: 50 barriers, 29 of them the kind that stop somebody outright, and 90 questions. Seven false-positive classes were found and fixed along the way, every one of them a defect in Tewip rather than in the projects, and none of them reachable from a fixture. They are listed in ROADMAP.md.
tewip standards # what this project has taught Tewip
tewip standards --diff main...HEAD --strict
Tewip knows a lot that is true of software in general and nothing that is true of your company. Every IT department has its own rules — "never drop a column in the release that stops writing to it", "locators use data-testid", "no test may sleep" — and a tool that cannot be taught them is a tool that argues with the house.
A standard is a markdown file in .tewip/standards/:
---
description: A fixed wait hides a race instead of fixing it.
applies-to: tests/, e2e/
forbid: /waitForTimeout|sleep\(/ because a fixed wait passes by luck and fails in CI
---
Wait for the thing you are actually waiting for — an element, a response, a state —
never for a number of milliseconds.
The split is the point. The forbid and require lines are checked and enforced, with the offending
line quoted and your own reason printed beside it. The prose below is guidance: Tewip carries it into
whatever it writes or fixes, and quotes it in reports — but it is never counted as checked and never
reported as kept. A team that believes an unenforceable rule is being enforced is worse off than a team
with no tool at all, because they have stopped watching for it themselves. A rule Tewip cannot parse is
reported as unusable rather than silently dropped.
Once written, the rules appear everywhere the work is judged: in tewip review, in the pull request
comment, and as a question in tewip done — "Does it keep this project's own standards?" — which
answers no and names the rule. The guidance goes into the prompt when tewip write drafts a test, so
what comes back is in your conventions rather than Tewip's.
tewip schema --diff main...HEAD # or: tewip schema migrations/0002_drop_nickname.sql
tewip schema --strict # fails the build on a change that breaks the running version
The most expensive change in a pull request is usually not a test — it is a migration. A column dropped
while the previous deployment is still selecting it. An index built without CONCURRENTLY, blocking every
write to the busiest table. A NOT NULL added to a populated table. These are known, documented, and a
tool can name every one of them from the text of the migration.
1 of 1 migration file(s) read. 1 change(s) would break the running version or destroy data
## Breaks the version that is still running (1)
- drops the column nickname from orders — migrations/0002_drop_nickname.sql:1
- Instead: deploy code that no longer selects or writes the column, then drop it in a later
migration. During a rolling deploy the old version is still running and will fail on a column
that is gone
## Code that still uses what this takes away (1)
- orders.nickname is still named in 1 file(s): app/orders.py
That last section is the part no SQL linter does: it searches your own code for what the migration takes
away. "This drops users.nickname, and four files still read it" is a different sentence from "dropping a
column is risky", and it is the one that stops the outage.
It reads SQL, Django, Rails and Alembic migrations, judges only the forward path (a rollback step
contains the mirror image of the change, so reading it says a migration that creates a table destroys
one), and stays quiet when the team already did the safe thing — atomic = False, algorithm: :concurrently, NOT VALID, postgresql_concurrently=True. When it cannot read a migration it says so
rather than passing it, and "read and nothing found" never looks like "not read".
Tried on real projects. 200 Zulip migrations: 199 read, 19 changes that break the running version or
destroy data, each sampled finding correct when read against the file — including a DROP COLUMN buried
in raw SQL inside a Python data migration. 60 Mastodon migrations: it caught a change_column that
rewrites a table, in a migration whose name says it only adds one.
What it does not know, and says so: your table sizes and how busy the database is, so it reports what a statement does — rewrites the table, scans every row, blocks writes — and leaves the duration to the person who knows the data. In CI the findings go into the pull request comment, and anything that breaks the running version enters the evidence bundle as a refusal: a passing test suite does not verify a migration.
tewip pick --diff main...HEAD # or: tewip pick src/pricing.js
tewip pick --list # just the files, for piping into your runner
A forty-minute suite is a suite people stop running. Vendors sell this as a prediction - a model guesses which tests matter - and a guess is the wrong shape for the job, because the cost of being wrong is a bug reaching production and nobody can audit a guess.
Here, skipping a test is a claim that it could not have noticed the change, and a claim needs evidence. A test runs when it imports a changed file, reaches one through another module, is edited by the change itself, reads the repository at run time (a guard that scans every source file can be broken by any file), or has failed recently — an unknown is never a skip. Everything else is left out with the reason printed beside it.
It refuses to narrow at all when the change touches dependencies, build or test configuration, shared setup or fixtures; when the suite drives a browser, because what a browser test exercises is not written in its imports; or when a changed file cannot be traced to any test, since code is reachable in ways an import does not show.
Measured by breaking the code (eval/pick-safety.ts): make a real mutation, ask pick what could
notice it, then run the whole suite to find out which tests really catch it. A failure is dropping a
catching test.
| Project | Judged cases | Catching test lost | Suite selected |
|---|---|---|---|
| This repository (node --test, 76 test files) | 8 | 0 | 7–9% |
| expressjs/express (Mocha, 88 test files) | 2 | 0 | refused to narrow — every test reaches the change |
Those two rows are the point. On a layered codebase it runs under a tenth of the suite and keeps every test that would have caught the bug; on a monolith where every test imports the package front door it says there is nothing to skip, rather than inventing a saving. It is also an MCP tool, so an agent can ask what to run before running anything.
In CI, mode: pick runs before your tests and hands the workflow the files to run:
- id: pick
uses: hmamut39/tewip@main
with: { mode: pick } # needs fetch-depth: 0 on actions/checkout
- run: npx jest ${{ steps.pick.outputs.tests }}
if: steps.pick.outputs.narrowed == 'true'
- run: npx jest
if: steps.pick.outputs.narrowed != 'true'
Whatever it leaves out is written into the job summary with the reason beside it, so "why did CI not run
that test" is answered by the run itself. When it will not narrow safely, narrowed is false and
tests is empty - so a workflow that ignores the flag still runs everything, which is the safe default.
tewip prove src/pricing.js # or --diff main...HEAD for what a change touched
tewip prove src/pricing.js --strict # exits non-zero when something goes unnoticed
Coverage says a line ran. It does not say anybody checked it. prove settles that by execution:
it breaks your code in small, deliberate ways - a boundary moved by one, a condition inverted, an
and that became an or, a returned flag flipped, a pattern loosened - runs the tests that reach
that file, and reports every change none of them noticed.
4 change(s) were made to your code and the covering tests were run against each. 3 went unnoticed.
- line 2: a boundary moved by one
- was: if (total >= 100 && isMember) return 0.2;
- became: if (total > 100 && isMember) return 0.2;
- line 9: a sign reversed
- was: return total - total * off;
- became: return total + total * off;
Both of those are real: the tests used 150 and 10 and never the boundary itself, and the test calling
finalPrice asserted nothing at all. Neither gap is visible in a coverage report, because both lines
were covered.
It refuses more often than it reports, and the refusals are the reason the reports are worth reading:
finally -
and the restore is verified, not assumed. A restore that did not work is an error, not a shrug.Source-derived launch command. Check the maintainer’s required arguments and credentials before running:
npx -y tewip-aiMerge this template into ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json. Keep existing servers. Add any arguments, credentials, and permissions required by the maintainer; this template has not been install-tested.
{
"mcpServers": {
"io-github-hmamut39-tewip": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"tewip-ai"
]
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop completely for changes to take effect. Confirm the server appears connected in the client’s tool list, then try a read-only example from its documentation.
Claude Desktop setup referenceio.github.hmamut39/tewip works with any MCP-compatible client. Copy the config snippet from the Configuration section above and add it to the file shown for your client, then restart the application.
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonRestart Claude Desktop completely for changes to take effect.~/.cursor/mcp.jsonRestart Cursor for changes to take effect..vscode/mcp.jsonReload VS Code window for changes to take effect.~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.jsonRestart Windsurf for changes to take effect..mcp.jsonSave at the project root, then start Claude Code in that project and review the MCP server approval prompt. Keep real credentials out of shared files.