Ask most engineers what tests are for and they'll say "to find bugs." It's an intuitive answer, and it's the wrong one — or at least, an incomplete one that leads to bad tests. The real purpose of a test suite isn't to catch bugs; it's to give you confidence — the freedom to change your code without fear of silently breaking it. Reframe testing around confidence instead of bug-finding, and you start writing dramatically better tests.
Here's why the confidence framing matters, and how it changes what you test.
The real purpose of testing is confidence — the freedom to change code without fear — not just finding bugs.
Why the reframe matters:
Don't ask "does this find bugs?" Ask "does this let me change code with confidence?"
The bug-finding frame treats tests as a net you drag through your code hoping to catch defects. It's not wrong that tests catch bugs — they do — but as the primary purpose it leads you astray. If finding bugs is the goal, you end up writing tests that check trivial things, chase coverage numbers, and accumulate a suite that's large but doesn't actually make you safer. You optimize for "tests exist" rather than "I can trust this code."
The confidence frame is more useful because it asks a better question: not "does this test find a bug?" but "does this test let me change the code without fear?" That question naturally guides you toward tests that matter — the ones protecting behavior that would genuinely hurt if it broke. Bugs caught become a byproduct of building confidence rather than the objective itself. The reframe isn't semantic hair-splitting; it changes what you write, because you're now optimizing for the thing tests are actually valuable for: the freedom to change code safely.
The deepest value of a test suite is that it enables change. Code isn't static — you refactor it, extend it, fix it, and every change risks silently breaking something that used to work. Without tests, every change is a leap of faith: you alter something and hope nothing downstream broke, because you have no way to know. That fear makes people avoid changing code, which is how codebases ossify and rot.
| Without confidence | With confidence |
|---|---|
| Every change is a risky guess | Changes are safe and verifiable |
| Fear of breaking things | Freedom to refactor and improve |
| Code ossifies, untouched | Code stays healthy and evolving |
| Bugs slip in silently | Breakage gets caught immediately |
A good test suite removes that fear. When tests cover the behavior that matters, you can refactor aggressively, add features boldly, and clean up freely — because if you break something important, a test tells you immediately. That confidence is what keeps a codebase alive: able to change and improve rather than frozen by the risk of touching it. This connects directly to shipping faster without breaking things: the confidence tests provide is precisely what lets you move fast and safely. Tests aren't bug-nets; they're the thing that makes change survivable.
The most practical payoff of the reframe is that confidence gives you a clear criterion for what to test — something the bug-finding frame never does well. Under "find bugs," every line is a candidate and you drown in trivial tests chasing coverage. Under "build confidence," the question becomes "what would hurt most if it broke?" — and that points you straight at the behavior worth protecting.
You test the critical paths, the complex logic, the things whose failure would be costly or hard to notice. You don't exhaustively test trivial code whose breakage would be obvious and harmless, because testing it adds little confidence for the cost. This is why coverage percentage is a poor goal: it measures how much code is tested, not how much confidence the tests provide — and those are very different. A suite that's 60% coverage on the things that matter gives more real safety than 95% coverage padded with trivial tests. Confidence-driven testing means investing your testing effort where it buys the most freedom to change safely, rather than spreading it evenly to satisfy a metric. That's the same outcomes-over-output discipline good engineering applies everywhere: optimize for the value (confidence), not the proxy (coverage).
To write tests that actually make you safer:
The throughline: testing is about confidence, and confidence is what lets a codebase change and improve instead of ossifying. Reframing from bug-finding to confidence changes what you write — toward tests that protect what matters and away from trivial coverage-padding — and produces suites that actually make you safer. Bugs caught are a welcome side effect; the real product of good testing is the freedom to change your code without fear.
Q: Aren't tests literally for finding bugs? They do find bugs, but as the primary framing it leads to bad tests — trivial checks, coverage-chasing, large suites that don't make you safer. The more useful purpose is confidence: the freedom to change code without fear of silently breaking it. That frame asks a better question — "does this let me change the code safely?" — which guides you toward tests that actually matter. Bugs caught become a byproduct of building confidence rather than the goal itself.
Q: How does the confidence framing change what I test? It gives you a clear criterion the bug-finding frame lacks: test what would hurt most if it broke. Instead of treating every line as a test candidate and drowning in trivial tests, you focus on critical paths, complex logic, and behavior whose failure would be costly or hard to notice. You skip exhaustively testing trivial code whose breakage would be obvious and harmless. Effort goes where it buys the most freedom to change safely.
Q: Why isn't high test coverage the right goal? Because coverage measures how much code is tested, not how much confidence the tests provide — and those are very different. A suite with 60% coverage on the things that matter gives more real safety than 95% coverage padded with trivial tests. Coverage is a proxy that's easy to game by testing obvious, harmless code. The goal is confidence — the freedom to change code without fear — so invest testing effort where it protects what matters, not where it inflates a percentage.
Testing isn't about finding bugs — it's about confidence, the freedom to change your code without fear of silently breaking it. The bug-finding frame leads to bad tests: trivial checks, coverage-chasing, suites that are large but don't make you safer. The confidence frame asks a better question — "does this let me change the code fearlessly?" — and that changes what you write.
Tests are what let a codebase evolve instead of ossifying, because they turn every change from a risky guess into something safe and verifiable. Confidence also tells you what to test: the things that would hurt most if they broke, not everything to satisfy a coverage metric. Bugs caught are a welcome side effect. The real product of good testing is fearless change — so test for confidence, and write better tests because of it.
No following, no network, no luck. Just an unglamorous system I ran for eighteen months. Here's exactly what I did.
I went from 200 to 11,000 subscribers without hiring anyone. AI didn't write my newsletter — it did everything around it.
I chased big, audacious goals for years and burned out every time. Then I built my whole life around wins so small they felt like cheating.
Comments
Sign in to join the conversation
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!