Enji GuardTests that actually prove your AI code works
A green suite feels like safety. But AI is very good at writing tests that pass without testing anything. Guard audits whether your tests prove what they claim, and opens reviewable fixes for the ones that don't.
1 repo · setup in about 5 minutes · no card, no commitment
01
A green check is not product confidence
Ask an AI for tests and you will usually get tests. The harder question is whether they prove the behavior users depend on. A test can call the right function, mock away the risky part, and still pass while the real signup, checkout, upload, or permission flow is broken.
02
The missing requirement is usually test discipline
AI often writes the test that satisfies the prompt, not the test strategy the product needs. If nobody defines what must be protected, the suite fills with narrow happy paths and loose mocks while the critical journeys stay unproven.
03
What Guard checks in your test suite
A test quality and reliability audit looks past the green checkmark and inspects whether tests protect real change:
- Happy paths that are tested only in isolation, not as real workflows
- Critical paths with no meaningful coverage or no integration check
- Assertions that pass even when the business logic is wrong
- Mocks so loose they hide auth, data, payment, or API failures
- Duplicate tests that raise coverage without raising confidence
- Flaky tests that teach the team to ignore the suite
- Skipped or disabled tests that quietly shrink real coverage
04
Coverage you can trust
The goal is not a higher percentage by itself. The goal is knowing which user flows, integration seams, and risky branches will fail when the code is wrong. Guard distinguishes tests that protect the product from tests that only decorate the pipeline.
05
Gaps become issues and pull requests
Weak or flaky tests come back as reviewable GitHub issues with evidence and rationale. When a fix is bounded and useful, Guard can open a pull request that strengthens an assertion, adds missing critical-flow coverage, or replaces a misleading mock.
Quick questions
Does higher coverage mean better tests?
No. Coverage can climb while tests prove nothing, mocking away the risky part and asserting on trivia. Guard checks whether a test would actually fail when the behavior is wrong.
Can it write the missing tests for me?
It can open a pull request that adds critical-flow coverage, strengthens a weak assertion, or replaces a misleading mock. You review it like any change; nothing lands on its own.
What is a tautological test?
A test that passes no matter what, because it asserts something always true or just restates the mock. It raises the coverage number without protecting anything, and Guard flags it.
How is this different from a coverage tool or a flaky-test detector?
Those count lines or reruns. Guard judges whether your tests protect the product: which user flows, integrations, and risky branches will actually fail when the code is wrong.
Find out which tests actually protect you.
Connect a repo and get your first test-quality report in a few minutes. No card.