<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Testing on OpenAdapt Blog</title><link>https://blog.openadapt.ai/tags/testing/</link><description>Recent content in Testing on OpenAdapt Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.165.0</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.openadapt.ai/tags/testing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The write audit: how to measure what your automation actually wrote</title><link>https://blog.openadapt.ai/posts/the-write-audit/</link><pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://blog.openadapt.ai/posts/the-write-audit/</guid><description>Most automation teams report one success number, and that number quietly includes the runs that wrote the wrong thing and said it went fine. Here is a vendor-neutral protocol for separating the two: a four-outcome scorecard, an oracle-strength ladder, seven persistence faults worth injecting, and the sampling math to turn a week of shadow runs into a defensible bound.</description></item></channel></rss>